ACLU Lens: American Citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi Killed Without Judicial Process

ACLU ^ | Sep 30, 2011 | Suzanne Ito, ACLU

[americanophile]

Today in Yemen, U.S. air strikes killed American citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Al-Aulaqi has never been charged with a crime. Last year, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights represented Al-Aulaqi's father in a lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone. We argued that such killings violate the Constitution and international law, but the case was dismissed in federal court last December.

In response to today's killing of Al-Aulaqi, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:

The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific, and imminent. 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. In a hearing before a federal court last November, government lawyers argued the president should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans he has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. As National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner added today: "If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the President does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."

[americanophile]

This is a real Constitutional dilemma, and not just for the morally bankrupt left. The President is tasked with defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, but the 5th Amendment specifically provides for Due Process.

[FlingWingFlyer]

"Thems the breaks!" - Christopher Lloyd, Goin' South

[boomop1]

Due process LOL in what country?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Personally I think the traitor gave up his Constitutional rights when he joined terrorist on a foreign battlefield but if the ACLU want to impeach Obomao over I'm good with it.

[youngidiot]

I’d like to point out that there is no such thing as “international law”. Nations act in whatever they believe is their own best interest.

[ConorMacNessa]

He was an enemy combatant regardless of his putative citizenship, ergo, fair game. Are we going to have to make our soldiers ask for judicial authorization before dispatching an enemy combatant?

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[americanophile]

Yes, I couldn’t care less about the international law claim, but the Constitutional problem is real.

[Pecos]

It was interesting to see the number of people who sat in vigil regarding the death sentence of the Georgia murderer, but who have not picketed the WH over the non-judicial killing of an American. Did he deserve the death penalty? Yup, probably so. The question is - "Who's next?" There were other ways to deal with this.

[americanophile]

Unfortunately ‘enemy combatant’ is something of an (inexact) invention, and surely doesn’t trump the Constitution.

[G Larry]

Once the clown took up arms against America he became a legal military target, without any such Constitutional protections.
Due process my butt!
I suppose any soldier on the field of battle that kills the enemy without “due process” is guilty of murder?!?!
“oh, no! what’s next? our cops will be killing civilians on the streets!?!?!”

[ConorMacNessa]

It's not an invention at all - the son of a bitch was recruiting, training and leading men in combat against us in a shooting war. He was a legitimate target.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[youngidiot]

Yes, I agree. It’s quite a pickle. I’m glad he’s dead. But they way we went about is disturbing. However, if you ran into the capital with a gun in hand you’d be gunned down, no two ways about it. This sob took up arms against the United States.

[americanophile]

Yes, the issue exists wholly apart from al-aulaqi (good riddance); we simply don't get to ignore the parts of the Constitution we don't find convenient at the moment, or the document means nothing...and if conservatives are willing to do so, then there's difference between us and those who have no regard for the 2nd Amendment, or the Free Exercise Clause, etc.

[americanophile]

It’s a serious issue.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Let’s open a can of worms. What about all those Germans who were U.S. citizens when WWII broke out but still went back to Germany to fight against the Americans. Ummm. What about their “due process”?

[bt579]

OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL. IMPEACH AND IMPRISON HIM NOW !!!!

[Gaffer]

Lock up the Raptor and take away its free-soars for a month.

[The Antiyuppie]

“Personally I think the traitor gave up his Constitutional rights when he joined terrorist on a foreign battlefield but if the ACLU want to impeach Obomao over I’m good with it.”

IMO, he effectively renounced his citizenship when he very publicly took up arms (even if those “arms” were words published electronically) in a foreign country. No fan of Obama here, but I say keep up the good work.

[Gaffer]

Should be “Reaper”

[americanophile]

The term ‘enemy combatant’ is not contained in the Constitution as a 5th Amendment exception, so we’re allowing the federal executive to create a self-determined, non-reviewable category of individuals who can be assasinated at will. We may like the result in this case, but it’s a very troublesome process, or lack thereof. It needs to be worked out.