iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Al-Awlaki Killing In Yemen Raises Constitutional Questions

Alawlaki Killing

First Posted: 09/30/11 01:56 PM ET Updated: 11/30/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The United States government killed an American citizen in Yemen on Friday in hostile action, despite not having declared war on the country or charging the citizen, American-born Anwar al-Awlaki, with a crime.

In a statement Friday morning, President Obama hailed the killing as "a major blow to al Qaeda's most active operational affiliate." He also said the death "marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda."

Time magazine reported al Awlaki was killed by airstrikes by the secretive Joint Special Operations Command, the same unit that took out Osama bin Laden in May.

A senior defense official echoed Obama's remarks, calling al-Awlaki's death "a decisive blow to al-Qaeda in Yemen ... A very bad man just had a very bad day. It's a good day, though, for American counterterrorism efforts."

American officials added al-Awlaki two years ago to a list of targets whom the military is authorized to kill, a move that raised the consternation and concerns of many civil liberties groups.

"For two years since Awlaki has reportedly been added to a kill list, the administration has made a lot of statements to the press but has presented no evidence to a court," said Ben Wizner, the National Security Project Litigation Director at the ACLU. "There's a distinction between allegations and evidence that's pretty critical here. Our argument isn't that you need to go to a court just to make the claim that he is an imminent threat, but placing someone on a kill list for months or years seems fundamentally inconsistent with the legal definition of 'imminent,' and so there's really no reason why a judicial role can't happen here."

Al-Awlaki graduated from Colorado State University and earned his master's at San Diego State University. Once a moderate cleric and a darling of the U.S. media, al-Awlaki gradually came to believe that violence against the United States was justified.

Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional blogger with Salon.com, appeared on Democracy Now Friday morning to denounce the killing as a step beyond what President Bush had done. "If you are somebody that believes the President of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without a shred of due process," Greenwald said, "then you are really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets."

WATCH Greenwald On Democracy Now:

Experts on Al Qaeda and counterterrorism have been split over the true importance of al-Awlaki to the global jihadi movement, with many experts believing that he was far more influential in the West than he ever was in Yemen, his home.

"He's someone who is much more well known in the West than he is in Yemen," said Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton. "He's not the number 1, not the number 2, not the number 3 [in Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula]. He's not the chief religious leader, not the head bomb maker, he's not any of these roles. But in terms of being someone who inspired so-called 'lone wolf' terrorists in the West -- someone who speaks English, is very charismatic -- that's where he was a unique figure and he will not be as easily replaced."

Aaron Zelin, an expert at Brandeis University on jihadi movements, agreed that Awlaki has greatly influenced English-speaking jihadists, but that his internal significance to the global movement may be overstated or even exacerbated by the American focus on him.

"Part of the problem is Awlaki speaks English, so people in the media here understand what he's saying," Zelin said, adding that Awlaki has only twice released statements in Arabic.

"In the past few years, with the U.S.'s campaign to kill him, he's become much more popular in the Arab world. His work has been translated into Urdu, Arabic, Malay, Russian, Bosnian -- all in the past year. [Without the Western focus] I think he still would have been big in the Western jihadi community, but I don't think he would have been taken as seriously in the global jihadi community."

U.S. officials have insisted that al-Awlaki had shifted in the past couple of years from speaking out against the U.S. to helping to organize attacks against it, though officials have yet to offer evidence publicly in court to back up those charges. Intelligence officials say they have linked al-Awlaki to the Fort Hood shootings in November 2009, as well as to a failed plot to bring down an American airliner in late 2010.

One former state department official told The Huffington Post on Friday that American intelligence evaluations have concluded that Awlaki has taken on a more operational capacity in recent years. He pointed to a recent issue of the Al Qaeda propaganda magazine Inspire, in which an article that American officials believed to have been penned by al-Awlaki was signed "Head of Foreign Operations."

"This happened over the last couple of years," the former official said. "Before that, he was much more of an inspirational leader, but this really changed up after he got to Yemen."

Nevertheless, the internal debate over whether his killing would be legal or appropriate, the former official said, was intense.

"I can tell you the government was really torn on this issue," he said. "There was a lot of hand wringing. It was not an easy call."

"It'll be really interesting to see if the U.S. now comes out and makes the public case about why they killed him," Johnsen said.

Nevertheless, the national security establishment is celebrating his death. Jane Harman is the former chair of the House homeland security subcommittee on intelligence and now president of Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "It's tricky that he was a U.S. citizen, but he clearly stated his intention to kill Americans and the Justice Department thoroughly vetted the legal issues and this strike was within the law," said Harman.

Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University said that while Awlaki was a native-born U.S. citizen, "He made his bed. He was obviously targeting the United States and took part in treasonous activity ... He not only joined up but was in the leadership of an organization that has declared war on the United States."

That doesn't excuse his killing, said Mary Ellen O'Connell, a Notre Dame scholar who studies targeted killings. "Derogation from the fundamental right to life is permissible only in battle zones or to save a human life immediately," said O'Connell. "The killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki did not occur in these circumstances. International law and moral principle have been breached in a place where the United States should be demonstrating non-violence and support for peaceful means of transforming society."

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who is running for the GOP presidential nomination, said that the killing is troubling. "No, I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul said after a campaign event in New Hampshire. "Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad."

Paul noted the different treatment afforded the Oklahoma bomber. "What would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, and they were pretty certain he had done it. They went and put him through the courts, and then they executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."

The Fifth Amendment forbids the federal government from depriving any person -- not just American citizens -- of "life ... without due process of law." Last summer, al-Awlaki’s father tried to enforce this fundamental constitutional limitation when he brought suit in federal court to stop the Obama administration’s efforts to assassinate his son without charging al-Awlaki with a crime or bringing him to trial. But the court tossed the suit in December, holding that parents cannot sue on their child's behalf once the child reaches the age of majority.

The ruling left the Obama Administration free to carry out its operation against al-Awlaki, under the justification that his al Qaeda membership made him a legitimate wartime target, American citizen or not.

Mike Sacks and Andrea Stone contributed reporting

Life Of Al-Awlaki
1  of  15
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
SHARE THIS SLIDE 
April 22, 1971 - Al-Awlaki is born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON - The United States government killed an American citizen in Yemen on Friday in hostile action, despite not having declared war on the country or charging the citizen, American-born Anwar a...
WASHINGTON - The United States government killed an American citizen in Yemen on Friday in hostile action, despite not having declared war on the country or charging the citizen, American-born Anwar a...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,759
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (71 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nikola Perkovic
03:57 PM on 10/13/2011
I guess that child NATO killed in Serbia was a terrorist too?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:17 AM on 10/13/2011
There is a difference between McVeigh and Awlaki, Awlaki joined an organization that the US is at war with. If McVeigh had been a Nazi terrorist working directly with the Nazis in Germany, then McVeigh could have been shot on sight, especially in the USA, but he wasn't. The important distinction if the group that Awlaki joined, and just like a US citizen joining the Nazis of WWII, Awlaki chose to join the enemy during a war with the enemy.

Using McVeigh is just an attempt to elicit sympathy amongst the Teaparty. The Teaparty's sympathy with McVeigh does not translate to sympathy against Muslim terrorists, unless those Muslim terrorists only target liberals, then perhaps the Teaparty would reconsider.
10:26 PM on 10/12/2011
Al Awasted was "very charismatic" -- and now very dead. Get some, a hole.
07:14 PM on 10/12/2011
Actually as we appear to be a war (even if no one will say it) al-Awlaki was dealt with as traitors are sometimes dealt with,,
celticfireusa
I Am A Limousine Liberal
07:14 PM on 10/12/2011
Another peace loving muslin bits the dust...The missle was the judge and jury case close...
10:27 PM on 10/12/2011
Death from above.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason Crittenten
11:34 AM on 10/05/2011
Here are Paul's comments about this statement. He's very relaxed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ISg6u7tPRU&t=2m32s
08:52 AM on 10/05/2011
Only a self-hating idiot would even question the legality of killing a known terorist and traitor who gave up his American ciitizenship decades ago when he decided to wage war against his own country. And that's true even if the idiot is running for President ala Ron Paul.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ycr
02:14 PM on 10/05/2011
Hey Idiot Boy, al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. He never formally gave up his citizenship. The libs say G.W. is a war criminal for starting an illegal war, well O took it one step further by authorizing the assassination of a U.S. citizen. No matter how heinous a person is, if they are a citizen, they get due process.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Just-a-Guy
'cuz youd rather talk to someone you disagree with
04:01 PM on 10/06/2011
He was a traitor

Fair game
04:07 AM on 10/07/2011
How do we give him due process, by risking American lives to capture this guy? Are his rights worth more than the American lives we risk in our efforts to capture him? What about the rights of the people he helped ki//?

Due process is fine and well when possible. His guilt was beyond question. There are videos and audios of him threatening attacks on America and of his calling on Muslims to attack Americans. I have zero sympathy for him. He got what he deserved, PERIOD.
12:39 AM on 10/05/2011
During the Iraq War Bush was criticized because he wasn't focusing on Al Qaida. Now Obama is being criticized because he is, and having success at it. In terms of its legality or permissibility under the Constitution, the assassination of Al-Awlaki is no different from that of Osama Bin Laden. I'll waste no tears on either one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ycr
02:17 PM on 10/05/2011
Except for al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, if that means anything anymore under this administration. Slippery slope. No one wasted any tears on Ted Bundy or other terrorists in this country, but they got due process. They were not ordered to be assassinated without a trial.
04:10 AM on 10/07/2011
How do we capture him? Send in troops, and start another war? Risk American lives to capture a many who's guilt is beyond question? That man was not worth 1 more American life.
photo
gonealreb
Our Constitution is just fine, thanks anyway.
08:34 PM on 10/04/2011
Everbody keeps harping about the Constitution, if you believe the Military Commission Act of 2006, passed by Congess and signed into law by the President who requested the power, then contact your Congressional Representative of Senator and get the law changed. Meanwhile, it's as binding on Obama as it was on Bush and will be on their successors.

....and Ron Paul knows this - he was in Congress when the bill was introduced, discussed and voted for. He knows darn well what is in it the the sister Military Commission Act of 2009.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:41 PM on 10/04/2011
This all started with the Patriot Act, came to a head with the TSA groping kids, Gitmo, and the undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Libya, then Biden started throwing the word "terrorist" around talking about citizens... and here we are. What is sad is people will hem haw about how this was a good thing, and never connect the dots on how badly our government has gone down the rabbit hole with tyranny. I'm terrified of our government. Please respect the purpose of the Constitution, even if you don't understand it. The experiment in liberty is failing.
10:33 PM on 10/12/2011
"I'm terrified of our government­." Dinkster

So when will you be heading for Yemen?
photo
RedRat
Ignorance is fixable, stupidty is forever
05:47 PM on 10/03/2011
I do not see any problem here. This guy proclaimed himself an enemy of the United States and committed treasonous acts. He advocated violence against the government of the US and its citizens, by his very own words. You need a trial to determine this? Really? Any rational person would understand that this guy was a traitor and treasonous, and for that he got the death penalty. Words have consequences.

Further we are in a war against terrorism, this was begun by Bush and now continued by Obama. In war, you cannot always pick and chose who you are going to kill on the battlefield. This was merely one battle out of many to come. He chose to join the other side and he now lost his life. I really do not see any issue here. In war, you do not go and take prisoners on the battlefield unless they give themselves up. He did not.
04:11 AM on 10/07/2011
Well said!
10:34 PM on 10/12/2011
Ditto.
05:22 PM on 10/03/2011
While I believe firmly in due process and the protections in our laws for citizens of this country, I am not troubled at all by his killing. To invoke the benefit of the protections included in our laws, one must maintain minimum contacts with this country. You don't get to claim a right to due process while hiding in a foreign country. He hid from the reach of the laws, to avoid being captured and called to account for his criminal actions. While it would have been preferable to some to try him in a civilian court, there can be no doubting his crimes; they are peppered on the internet in his own words. The harm from his self-described activities creates an imminent threat. The military action was justified.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:43 PM on 10/04/2011
Because everything on the internet is true? His own words you say...
08:13 PM on 10/04/2011
God go hide under a rock, yeh his own words, do you have proof of another color or are you one of those people that just want to cry fowl, here come a big investigation by the aclu thats probably going to cost tax payers millions, they wont get any more money from me, sorry my pockets are already empty, lol, to bad!!
Satirist1
All 4 d best in the best of all possible worlds
05:07 PM on 10/03/2011
Once Al Awlaki took arms against United States he was no longer a criminal, but became a legitimate enemy military target.
At any point in time he could've negotiated a surrender to U.S. embassy, would've been given U.S. citizen protections and access to U.S. criminal justice system. Yemen government would've been totally agreeable.
He chosen not to so.
Al Awlaki made a bad choice, among many other bad choices. And now the world is rid of his bloodthirsty influence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Is Right
04:47 PM on 10/03/2011
"It's tricky that he was a U.S. citizen, but he clearly stated his intention to kill Americans and the Justice Department thoroughly vetted the legal issues and this strike was within the law," said Harman.

Within the law? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." THAT is the the law.
05:12 PM on 10/03/2011
When this law was written there were no Twin Towers, no terriosts, no murderous idiots preaching the death to all Americans...it is time to change the laws to fit the times...just like the "Don't ask don't tell" time to change the laws. Put these Judges to work. They already have nothing to do but get old and fat.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:00 PM on 10/04/2011
Yeah, it was written when the local town baker could have been a spy for the Redcoats. The threat hasn't changed one iota.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:02 PM on 10/04/2011
Actually, are you sure you are conservative? Everything you just said is not representive of American Conservatism.
04:23 PM on 10/03/2011
justice is like time its relative to where you are in space or in life he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong ideals.