A few thoughts on Obama’s extrajudicial assassination of US citizen Anwar al Awlaki.
One thing that stands out is the curious fact that almost all mass media mentions of Awlaki refer to him as “American born.”
Awlaki wasn’t just “American born” - he was an American citizen. So was Samir Khan, who was killed alongside him, apparently unintentionally, in the same drone attack.
That’s two American citizens killed because the US President declared one of them to be a terrorist and demanded his death.
Think about that for a moment.
These were US citizens. Executed without arrest, without charges, without a trial, without evidence, without a hearing, without anything resembling due process. They were killed because the President said they were evil and needed killing.
Even if they *were*, for the sake of argument, really and truly Evil, and really did deserve death -
Do you really think a President - any President - should have that kind of power?
The power to just declare any *citizen of his own nation* worthy of death, and to order their assassination?
Without any oversight? Without any checks or balances? Without arrest, charges, trials, evidence?
Consider - official policy when dealing with the worst *mass murderers* in the US… monstrous individuals who kill their fellow citizens - is to track them down, apprehend them, charge them, put them on trial, and provide evidence to prove their guilt. Even the worst *mass murderers* are, under US law, presumed innocent until *proven guilty*.
But if the magic label of terrorist is affixed to a citizen, apparently all their rights vanish instantly.
Awlaki and Khan - again, American citizens, both of them - didn’t kill anyone.
What were their crimes?
Speaking and writing. Expressing ideas. Communicating a point of view the US government did not agree with. That’s all that’s apparent.
The government of Mr. Obama asserts that Awlaki was “operationally” involved with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that he was planning attacks on US “interests and citizens” - but they refuse to provide any evidence of that. To anyone who questions these assertions, their response has been basically “this is what we’re saying is true, we don’t have to provide any evidence, so fucking shut up and believe it, assholes. Jesus, what’s the matter with you cynical bastards? It’s time to celebrate! - we killed that motherfuckin’ Terrorist stone dead, bitches!”
In the absence of any evidence regarding Awlaki’s alleged “operational” involvement, what we’re left with are the crimes of speaking and writing.
Two US citizens making use of their rights, as citizens, to freedom of speech, were killed, apparently, because what one of them - Awlaki - was saying was deemed evil, dangerous, and worthy of death by the President. And the other - Khan - well, he was just a lucky coincidence.
So it seems that Awlaki was killed because he “inspired” terrorists. He “exchanged emails with” terrorists.
Apparently these are now crimes punishable by extrajudicial assassination.
No arrests, charges, trials, or evidence necessary. No presumption of innocence. No need to prove guilt.
Apparently, now, the President’s mere word is enough to establish a conviction.
Apparently, now, the US President’s personal, unaccountable decisions and orders to kill US citizens trump the entire American legal system.
Don’t you think that maybe, in the broader picture, this should be a litte bit of a cause for concern?
One thing’s for sure… Mr. Obama is an odd kind of constitutional scholar and a vastly odder kind of Nobel Peace Prize winner.
