They Told Glenn Reynolds …

Posted on | September 30, 2011 | 78 Comments

… that if he voted for John McCain, Americans would be executed without trial — and they were right!

The due-process-free assassination
of U.S. citizens is now reality

American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki
Assassinated in Yemen

Big Gator notes that Anwar Al-Awlaki has the right to remain silent.

Da Tech Guy wonders if Glenn Greenwald and David Dayen would extend their human-rights concerns to certain other . . . uh, critics of U.S. foreign policy. (Should I be insulted by the analogy?)

Meanwhile, human rights advocates must condemn that bloodthirsty neocon warmonger ~~Dick Cheney~~ Andrew Sullivan.

UPDATE: Donald Douglas calls attention to another typical reaction from British international relations expert Stephanie Carvin:

I’m no fan of Awlaki and I will certainly not mourn his passing, (really – he seems like a total jerk) but this raises serious questions about the targeted killing program, who is being targeted and why. Presumably, in the case of targeted killing, its important there is evidence BEFORE the killing, rather than a scrabble now to piece together a case, after the fact.
I hope there is evidence that he actually materially supported terrorism.

“I hope there is evidence”? Under what rock have you been hiding, lady? But what stuns me is Professor Carvin’s evident need to stipulate that she is “no fan of Awlaki” — which is, I’m sure, a welcome reassurance to Scotland Yard and the Home Secretary — before she proceeds to “serious questions about the targeted killing program.” It’s one of those noticeable tics of liberalism, the telltale flinch of a confused and guilt-ridden mind, and as such almost impossible to parody:

I’m no fan of Martin Bormann and I will certainly not mourn his passing . . .

I’m no fan of James Earl Ray and I will certainly not mourn his passing . . .

I’m no fan of the Green River Killer and I will certainly not mourn his passing . . .

Where do they find these people? Are the parents of students at the University of London aware that their children are under the tutelage of this bewildered idiot?

UPDATE II: The passing of one of Al-Awlaki’s comrades tempts John Hitchcock to satire:

Editor Of Popular Internet Magazine Dead At 25
Samir Kahn, 25, was born in Saudi Arabia but grew up in New York. He later returned to the Middle East and began publishing the popular e-zine “Inspire” in an effort to educate English-speaking youth in world politics by speaking in their own vernacular. . . .

Category: Andrew Sullivan, Da Tech Guy, Instapundit, Terrorism

Comments

78 Responses to “They Told Glenn Reynolds …”

The Wondering Jew
September 30th, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

This is a problem that I hope we can solve legally, because we really don’t want enemies of, say, Obama, being killed extrajudicially, but at the same time, I can’t say I’m anything other than delighted at this outcome. We need to get some sort of clear legal opinion from the Supremes that basically says that if you declare war against the U.S. like this, your privileges and immunities go bye-bye.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

Oh, great, let’s submit yet more to the court system.

Why is it so difficult to see the obvious? Here was a guy who was a part of an organization against which the President and the Armed Forces are fighting with the legal backing of a Congressional Resolution for the Authorized Use of Military Force.

These guys are explicitly not police or courts or anything resembling a legal system. They are war fighters fighting a war.

I suspect (hope?) that both the Executive and Legislative Branches would ignore/refudiate whatever the Supreme Court had to say about this, since it would be yet another a naked unconstitutional power grab by the Judicial Branch.
BREAKING: AL-QAEDA LEADER ANWAR AL-AWLAKI KILLED IN YEMEN ‘FACEBOOK FRIEND FROM HELL’ : The Other McCain
September 30th, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

[…] of the operation remain unclear.All the (wrong) news that’s fit to print!UPDATE VI: “They Told Glenn Reynolds …”Category: Terrorism, YemenComments http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/43349 Cartoon of […]
The Wondering Jew
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:11 pm

Scarymatt, would you feel differently if the people targeted for assassination were say, some American militia members who were guilty of “clinging to their guns and religion” and saying some not-nice things about President Obama? Sorry, but that’s not a sort of precedent I want to set.

I agree that it is “obvious” that these people were fighting in a war against the U.S. I agree that the targeted killing was justified. But I can also guarantee you that the government lawyers have put out private legal opinions to that effect. Those legal opinions should be made public, and formalized in law, so that it is very clear the circumstances under which we can go after American citizens in this manner– or, better yet, cause them to lose their citizenship, making the judicial process moot.

But, absent any legal standard, I don’t want the President just being able to decide that certain American citizens are enemies of the country and can be executed by the President’s whim.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

Let’s see, would I feel differently about a completely different situation? Yes! Yes, I would.

So now the military has to have legal opinions for strikes against legitimate targets? Is that really what you want?

cause them to lose their citizenship, making the judicial process moot

Will you please quote to me the part of the Constitution saying that citizenship is a requirement to not being included by the phrase “No person…”?

But, absent any legal standard, I don’t want the President just being able to decide that certain American citizens are enemies of the country and can be executed by the President’s whim.

Your straw men should get together with the President’s straw men. Here is your legal standard! If you believe that the President or the Armed Forces have acted outside of that, then we can have a conversation. But you can’t ignore facts like this (hey, it’s only been around for a little over 10 years) and expect to be taken seriously.
John Hitchcock
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

Did you see on NBC where Ron Paul condemned Awlaki’s “assassination”?
DaveO
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

When ole Anwar al-Meatsackextracrispy became an enemy of the US of A – an action done of his own free will – the Constitution steps aside. It doesn’t protect those who act to destroy it.

For historical precendence, please see the Battle of Gettysburg, in which the Army of the Potomac (the North, i.e. The US of A) did not spend the battle mirandizing each of the Confederate soldiers (the majority of whom were US-born natural citizens of the US of A).
Bert Spence
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

Stacy, I followed Da Tech Guy’s Winston Wood Bolt link back to your 8.9.10 post on the history of your family. It is one of your best. I grew up not too far north of Wedowee, Alabama, myself, and spent a big part of my summers in a renovated house trailer (porch built on) on Lake Gerald, in the town of Delta (a “vacation home” that my father acquired in a trade that involved a used pickup truck and less cash than it takes, now, to take a family on a single vacation trip), which is so close to Wedowee that that’s where we went to get natural gas for the stove. And of course you and I wound up at JSU at the same time, making me incredibly lucky to have made your acquaintance and eventual friendship. I knew then that you had that intangible “something” in your writing that would make you great at it. Your Winston Wood Bolt piece is just one more exhibit of proof, among thousands.

-Bert “the Samoan Lawyer”
The Wondering Jew
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

Scarymatt, you are the one constructing straw men. Your link points to the authorization of war based on the Sept. 11th attacks, yet Al-Awlaki had nothing at all to do with those attacks and no one claims otherwise. Some analysts of Al Qaeda claim that he in fact he has no operational role at all, though I do not personally believe this to be true.

You reference the Constitution, but the Constitution is clear on only one aspect of this, which is that you can’t execute American citizens without due process. Everything else is murky. All I am saying is that we should make it clear, and I don’t think it is impossible to do so. Again, I supported the strike, but I just think we need to justify our position. You claim the militia example I offered is different but offer no standard other than “Scarymatt says so” for feeling that it is different. Sorry, that’s not good enough for me.

And no, I don’t want the military having to get a judicial opinion every time we carry out a strike. In fact, I generally detest the illegal judicial involvement in these actions. We can do whatever we want in fighting foreign nationals. That’s why it’s called a war. But when a U.S. citizen is the core target of such a strike, we need to have a legal standard for justifying it.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

Was anybody else in the car, who just happened to be a terrorist ?
Anwar al-Awlaki is collateral damage.

Warning: Hanging out with known terrorists may be hazardous to your health
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

Sorry for the broken recordness, but the Constitution did not step aside. Congress told the President to go to war. This idiot chose the wrong side. The President and the Armed Forces were acting within their Constitutional duties.

Interesting post at Volokh examining some of the legal details.
The Wondering Jew
September 30th, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

DaveO, I don’t disagree with you. I just think we need to say *why* in a public, legal, and general way, citing precedents such as Gettysburg, and there are certainly other. I don’t want us having to Mirandaize terrorists and as far as I am concerned, Al-Awlaki did forfeit his rights as a citizen by effectively declaring war on us. All I am saying is that we need to make our private legal opinions on this, which have already been written, public, so that our policy is clear.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

OK, you can stick your head in the sand as much as you like.

In fact, the Constitution does not specify “American citizens.” It specifies “no person.” If you want to be a pedantic dickweed about it (and I suppose the entire legal profession revolves around doing just that) I suppose you could say that the war powers of the President could be in conflict with Due Process. It’s a new argument, so the burden of proof is on you to say why the current situation is not correct.
You’re the one conjuring up some magical citizenship-based Get Out of War Free card. The ACLU already got shot down legally when they tried to get al Awlaki off of the kill list (or whatever it was called). But please, continue to refuse to take yes for an answer.
McGehee
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

I’m no fan of this Lucifer guy, and I will certainly not mourn his being cast into the pit, but this raises serious questions about the Archangel program, who is being targeted and why.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:06 pm

I just went through the actual text of the Constitution (maybe there are other statutes or something) looking for rights of citizens (as opposed to limits of government power against people generally). They appear to be:

Qualification for office.
Voting.
Some legal rights with respect to states, especially extradition.

Which is good, since it would be Bad to not require Due Process to take away the liberty of non US Citizens. But your argument seems to be that we can shoot foreigners as much as we like without regard to due process.

I don’t think you’ve thought this argument through.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:07 pm

There are legitimate arguments to be made against TWJ’s arguments but that they are straw men is NOT one of them. Make no mistake this power in the hands of the current Bolshevik regime or their successors WILL be used against us. Killing Alwacky is it’s own virtue and should have been done whether it’s legal or not. Is there a taken dead or alive warrant for his arrest? If there is he had an opportunity to surrender. If this killing is an illegal act, it can be excused under a justifiable homicide defense.

It would be preferable that we had an official declaration of hostilities, not necessarily at war. While Islam has been at war with all who are not for 1400 years I’m sure there are practical reasons why we might not want to officially acknowledge that a state of war exists between the United States of America and the Ideology known as Islam. This should not preclude our officially recognizing that we are at some level of war/hostilities with elements of Islam however we might choose to “style” that enemy.
Joe
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:11 pm

When you take up arms against your country and join some foriegn force against the United States…all bets are off. No, we are not going to send the cops to arrest you. We are going to kill you.
The Wondering Jew
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:14 pm

Was he on the battlefield, attacking a U.S. soldier? He was not.

Therefore, unless we say why he doesn’t have rights as a citizen, he should be afforded due process rights of trial by jury for any crimes he may have committed. If we think he has, through his actions, forfeited these rights, and I believe he has, we just need to publicly say why, which we are already doing privately. But the Administration is too chickenshit to do it, probably because of fear of pissing off some of it’s far left base. Publicly stating the reasons for killing U.S. citizens who have not renounced their citizenship is not about protecting Al-Awlaki, it’s ultimately about protecting me and you.
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Anwar al-Awlaki dead, Greg Greenwald and the left hardest hit.
September 30th, 2011 @ 3:15 pm

[…] No you should not be insulted Stacy. Mr. Al-Awlaki and Mr. Bolt were born in the United States and were members of organizations at war […]
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Whenever I’m accused of prejudice against Pacific Islanders, I always say, “Some of best friends are Samoan!”
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:18 pm

Warning: Hanging out with known terrorists may be hazardous to your health

The Surgeon General is working on making that warning mandatory.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

So he has to be holding a gun? Planning, directing, these things count for nothing?

Look, you keep bringing up his citizenship like that has something to do with it. The administration is correct in this case in saying that he’s an enemy combatant and a legal target.

Again, that’s a crucial distinction whether he’s a citizen or not. From the Volokh post I linked in another comment:

Insofar as Al-Aulaqi was targeted for taking operational part in groups engaged in armed conflict with the United States, historically the fact of citizenship has been neither here nor there.

Please explain why you think his citizenship matters for the purposes of making war.
Peter Ingemi
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:22 pm

No worries Stacy, I wanted to point out that to the left has much more compassion for a politically correct targeted of women, children and people who have Fatwa’s against journalists than those who fought under the article of war.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

Make no mistake this power in the hands of the current Bolshevik regime or their successors WILL be used against us.

With Black Helicopters, no doubt. Come back from the light, Adobe.

Here’s the most obvious straw man:

…absent any legal standard…

Here, I’ll put it into more familiar straw man language:

“Let me be clear. There are those who say that absent any legal standard…”
Editor Of Popular Internet Magazine Dead At 25 « Truth Before Dishonor
September 30th, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

[…] Comments They Told Glenn Reyn… on Editor Of Popular Internet Mag…On The Issues, Democ… on Numbers Democrats […]
Joe
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:40 pm

And if these bastards are on American soil, well duh, you just go capture them (and if they resist kill them). When they are hiding out in Yemen or Pakistan and directing terrorist attacks against us–oh well, send in the drones and shoot a hell fire at them.
Joe
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

That only means something if you are sitting bare chested at some beach party, drunk on fermented coconut sap, with taro and pig fat smeared across your face.
Old Rebel
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:52 pm

Gee, I’m so old, I can remember when conservatives were against unrestrained government power.

Let’s not forget that while we’re whooping it up that the Commander-in-Chief has assumed the power to execute American citizens who MIGHT be a terror threat, the SPLC has inserted its agenda into the Department of Homeland Security. Gun owners, conservatives, home schoolers, ex-servicemen, and Christians are considered prime terror suspects.

How long until unconstitutional means are used against THOSE dissident groups?
ThePaganTemple
September 30th, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

You again? This guy was a major leader of a foreign enemy who is at war with us. Killing guys like that, citizen or not, is what our government and military is supposed to do. It is, believe it or not, their constitutional duty to do so.
Thomas Knapp
September 30th, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

the President and the Armed Forces are fighting with the legal backing of a Congressional Resolution for the Authorized Use of Military Force.

These guys are explicitly not police or courts or anything resembling a legal system. They are war fighters fighting a war.

Make up your mind which it is, but it’s one or the other, not both. The Congressional resolution for the Authorized Use of Military Force is not only not a declaration of war, but it expressly states (in Section 2(b) that it is not a declaration of war.
The Wondering Jew
September 30th, 2011 @ 8:05 pm

Scarymatt, I think that the Volokh piece is actually quite good. And it makes the public legal arguments that I wish the administration actually had the courage to make. But the poster admits that he is guessing about U.S. motivations and procedures because we aren’t being told about them.

And I’d further note this quote

“Though I believe the US government had firm grounds
domestically and internationally to target Al-Aulaqi, I also believe as a
matter of forward looking legal policy that the US should elaborate
more extensive and explicit oversight procedures in the case of
targeting of US citizens that will ensure the buy-in of the political
branches.”

That is what I want as well.

We are playing into the left’s hand’s by not forcing them to publicly and legally justify their actions, which would expose the fact that they are using many of the same rationales that they condemned when the Bush Administration uses.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 8:21 pm

The Congressional resolution for the Authorized Use of Military Force is not only not a declaration of war, but it expressly states (in Section 2(b) that it is not a declaration of war.

We must be reading different resolutions. Section 2b is talking about the War Powers Resolution, which is a different thing than the declaration of war power. It references section 5b of the War Powers Resolution, which talks about the 60 day reporting requirement. The Constitutionality of that piece of legislation has always been in dispute.

True, they didn’t say “We Declare War” in the resolution, and the reference to the War Powers Act makes other mentions about declaring war, but what else is the use of military force against and enemy, really, but a declaration of war?

But for the sake of argument and Internet comity, I’ll concede the point and stop referring to them as war fighters, and begin calling them Authorized User of Military Force fighters.
Old Rebel
September 30th, 2011 @ 8:26 pm

When Solzhenitsyn was arrested for letters he’d written, he objected that the Soviet Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech.

He was informed that those rights were for loyal Soviet citizens only.

Welcome to the Gulag.
ThePaganTemple
September 30th, 2011 @ 8:47 pm

Well, well, well, what do you know? The Soviet Union abused their constitution.

And we did not.
Thomas Knapp
September 30th, 2011 @ 8:58 pm

ScaryMatt,

Read the War Powers Resolution. It explicitly differentiates “authorized use of force” from “war,” and the Authorization for use of force explicitly deems the activities in question as the former, not the latter.

I don’t regard the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution as “in dispute” in any meaningful sense of the word. It’s so clearly unconstitutional that any “dispute” is of the “since he left the keys in the car, it wasn’t really stealing when I got in it, waved a gun at him until he got out, drove it to a chop shop, and traded it for a big honkin’ bag of crack” variety.

As an anarchist, I’m always running into people who explain to me that we need government because we need rules.Like I said in another thread, if you statists can’t be bothered to respect your own rules, don’t expect me to.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

Well, whatever you think about its Constitutionality, there are legitimate questions about it.

Either way, it’s a distinction without a difference in this case. To rephrase to please you:

They are Authorized Users of Military Force Users exercising an Authorized Use of Military Force. You may now carry on pretending to care about laws.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

Your faith in the good intentions of Bolshevism is scary matt.
Obama’s latest hit | Conservative Heritage Times
September 30th, 2011 @ 5:21 pm

[…] a drone launches a Hellfire rocket that scorches a convoy in Yemen. And I’m supposed to get misty-eyed and puffed up over this? From Fox News: Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen early Friday morning by a […]
Old Rebel
September 30th, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

In addition to claiming the power to assassinate US citizens without a trial, Obama is expanding executive authority to unilaterally declare war, order torture of suspects, and exercising “preventive detention,” jailing suspects without the right of habeas.

Obama is supposed to enforce other laws, too. Okay with you if he uses those powers to enforce drug laws? How about prosecuting “hate crimes”?

Where does it end?
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 9:41 pm

You are kidding right?
That Alwacky was an enemy of the US and did indeed warrant killing, is beside the point. The question is the who and the how is the distinction made between he and me.
kansas
September 30th, 2011 @ 9:52 pm

I think they were just trying to remodel the building he was in. It was a work accident.
Joe
September 30th, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

If Alawaki was on American soil, no I would not propose having a hell fire missile fired against him. And yeah I would not be okay with targeted assassinations of American citizens in America. But when any right wing militias take up arms against America, in say, Pakistan or Yemen, let me know.
Joe
September 30th, 2011 @ 10:16 pm

Thomas feel free to disregard any law you disagree with. I can’t say my permission is going to help you as a defense against the state, but you have my blessing.

I also suspect you are not going to take up arms and kill any American citizens (unless of course you have good reason to do so such as self defense, etc.).
AngelaTC
September 30th, 2011 @ 11:27 pm

Naked power grab by the judicial branch? If you love the constitution, maybe you should read the damned thing. This is a naked power grab by the executive branch.

The Constitution says that the punishment for treason is decided by congress. It also outlines the specific procedures for declaring a citizen treasonous, part of which involves an open court or public testimony from two eyewitnesses.
Could I also point out that there is a law that specifically forbids ALL government officials from ordering assassinations?
AngelaTC
September 30th, 2011 @ 11:30 pm

It is illegal for any government official to order the assassination of any person. Which probably works out well for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, since the Veep decided they were terrorists.
AngelaTC
September 30th, 2011 @ 11:33 pm

I think you need an amendment to do that. We can’t legislate away our constitutional rights.

The procedure for treason is already clearly outlined – Article III, Section 3. It’s just the the Republicans don’t really believe in the Constitution when they want to kill and maim people, evidently.
ThePaganTemple
September 30th, 2011 @ 11:35 pm

“Against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC”.
AngelaTC
September 30th, 2011 @ 11:37 pm

Article 3, Section III .

And the “kill list” is illegal too. It is illegal for any government official to order an assassination: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#2.11

But I’m sure Obama thanks you for your support.
ThePaganTemple
September 30th, 2011 @ 11:38 pm

I wish he would use them to enforce drug laws, or we should legalize drugs, one of the two. Maybe then he’d go after the drug cartels, including but not limited to the Mexican gangs. While we’re at it, I’d be fine if he went after all organized crime gangs in that way, including the Mafia, Crips, Bloodz, etc. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen though, and just between you and me, I think you have no worries in that regard either.
Anonymous
September 30th, 2011 @ 11:39 pm

All this quibbling over whether we should kill an avowed terrorist bent on the nation’s complete destruction remond sme of the old Bill Cosby skit. The idea was that all conflicts would be decided by a coin toss. The winner of the toss got to make up the rules for the conflict.

In the case of the American Revolution, George Washington won the toss. He laid down a simple rule. The Americans could wear anything they wanted to, shoot from behind trees and run away while toe British had to wear red and march in a straight line.

Unfortunately, that’s what a lot of Americans want America to do: wear red and march in a straight line consulting law dictionaries while jihadists can do anything they want to, including nuke our cities with impunity.