Below is today’s column in USA Today (to run in paper form on Wednesday) on President Barack Obama’s claim to the right to kill citizens as dangers to the nation. Ironically, the day after I wrote the Los Angeles Times column on Obama’s disastrous impact on the civil liberties movement in the United States (including his assertion of the right to kill citizens on his own authority), the U.S. killed two citizens in Yemen. Notably, Ron Paul (who has emerged as the only candidate discussing these issues from a civil libertarian perspective) suggested an impeachment inquiry based on the killing of the two citizens. Below is the column in USA Today.
Last week, Americans saw a curious sight for a free nation: their president ordered the killing of two U.S. citizens without a trial or even a formal charge and the public applauded. President Obama never denied that he told the military to kill Anwar al-Awlaki on his sole discretion a year ago. They did so last week in Yemen – and killed U.S.-born cleric Samir Khan for good measure. Two U.S. citizens killed because a president unilaterally declared them to be part of a terrorist organization.
Before the killing, Obama successfully fought efforts by al-Awlaki’s family to have a court review the legality for the planned assassination of their kin. Due to reported prior associations of the U.S. government with al-Awlaki, it was a hearing that the intelligence agencies likely did not want to occur. At the time, the Justice Department argued that if al-Awlaki wanted judicial review, he should file with the clerk’s office himself – despite an order for him to be shot on sight. The Obama administration succeeded in arguing that the planned killing of a citizen on this hit list was a “political question,” not a legal question.
While few people mourn the passing of a figure like al-Awlaki who was accused being a leader in al Qaeda, they should mourn the passing of basic constitutional protections afforded to all citizens. So a president can now kill a citizen without publicly naming him as a target, stating the basis for his killing, or even acknowledge his killing once it has been carried out. Even if one assumes citizens would only be killed outside the country, it would mean that a your life becomes dispensable the minute you step a foot over one of our borders.
At the same time, the government has expanded the definition of terrorism and material support for terrorism, which in turn further expands the scope of possible targets. When confronted on the lack of knowledge of who is on this list and the basis for their killing, the Obama administration simply says that citizens must trust their president. It is the very definition of authoritarian power – and Americans appear to have developed a taste for it.
Obama’s hit list is a continuation of a policy defended by George W. Bush, who ordered an attack that killed U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, in Yemen in 2002. While Bush wanted Yemeni Abu Ali al-Harithi (the alleged mastermind behind the 2000 bombing of the U.S. Cole) dead, Derwish was riding in the car with him (as well as four other individuals). Derwish was not even on a hit list, but U.S. intelligence officials said it did not matter because they were authorized to kill Americans in such operations.
The sight of free people applauding the president’s discretionary killing of citizens would have horrified the framers of our Constitution. In conflict with a system based on checks and balances, Obama controls not just who will die but whether a court can review his decisions. Even if the family of these men were to try to sue for wrongful death, the Obama administration insists that they have the discretion to block such cases under the “military and state secrets privilege.” Thus, even if a president arbitrarily were to order the killing of a citizen, neither the victim nor his family could challenge the matter before an independent court (assuming they even knew about the order).
Notably, in the face of this extrajudicial killing of two citizens, Democrats who claim to be civil libertarians like Dianne Feinstein have cheered the president – creating a record for the next president to expand on these acquiesced powers.
No republic can long stand if a president retains the unilateral authority to kill citizens who he deems a danger to the country. What is left is a magnificent edifice of laws and values that, to quote Shakespeare’s Macbeth, is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
Rafflaw, I thought Kucinich stood for social and racial equality. Guess that is not the case if he would pick a racist disciple of Ayn Rand for a running mate. Neither of these guys are going anywhere. The more exposure Paul gets the lower his poll numbers get. He makes Rick Perry look like he has a heart.
You might be encouraged to know that media coverage of this action in Australia has grasped the concepts Prof Turley has written of.
I would go so far as to describe the tone as “shock”, even from some of our more rabid Murdochian titles.
Actually, we’re quite keen on putting the boot into the USofA down here at the moment, which is a significant change from 10-15 years ago I would suggest.
Ron Paul has little integrity. First he authored racist newsletters, but they were “taken out of context”, then years later when running for President, he had no idea who wrote them and wasn’t even sure that he knew they existed. That’s integrity you can believe in!
I agree that this is bad policy and sets worse precedent.
What I don’t get is why so many people who would (and did) protest if a Republican President declared that he could something like this, are either silent or supportive when a Democratic does it.
Obama claims to have read up on Reagan for pointers a being a popular president.
He must have missed the part that shows Reagan would have jailed Cheney, and by extrapolation, probably Obama too.
The current president, like the former president, is a lawless killer unfortunately.
It is a systemic corruption.
Thank you professor for your posting and insight…As i have already said this is the American version of the Star Chamber….To know that a self proclaimed democrat did this and it was not even LBJ is reprehensible….
dredd,
That was tactfully done….LOL….
Bron,
Thanks for the Manilow information.
Blouise,
I have to disagree with Kucinich. The only thing Paul has going for him is his opposition to the wars. I still think integrity includes caring for your fellow man.
raff,
Kucinich on Ron Paul … it will probably surprise you
rafflaw:
it all stems from the same idea of individual liberty and freedom.
As far as Barry Manilow goes he sings Ron Paul’s campaign song:
anon,
I understand Prof. Turley agrees with Ron Paul on many issues, but Where and when did Bernie Sanders and Al Franken and Kucinich say they attest to his honesty, intelligence and integrity and what do Honesty and Intelligence have to do with it? How can you have integrity and state that society should allow someone to die if they don’t have insurance? And how does Barry Manilow fit into this???
Rafflaw,
Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Al Franken and I believe Professor Turley all attest to Ron Paul’s honesty, intelligence, and integrity. Over and over again. Barry Manilow as well.
People’s fear of terrorists trumps anything else in the minds of many. I am not sure how I feel about this. Is he an American first or a terrorist first? Had we warned him he would have run and possibly told his minions to kill Americans as he went into hiding. Maybe he gave up being an American when he decided we were the enemy. The sad part of this as well as we did not hear the outcries when Bush did this. It was as wrong then as it is now but now it is an outrage because it is Obama.
Obama conceded to George Stephanopolous that he was the underdog in this election.
Nevertheless, he is the best republican in the race so far.
You’ve touched on the most important lesson of this terrifying new policy, the public’s lack of concern about how Al-Awlaki’s loss of the most basic rights equates to a similar loss of their own rights. Sadly, this assassination means that Obama has effectively killed the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause along with an alleged terrorist, who was killed before the government needed to show a shred of evidence against him in court. A person who promised Hope and Change, and who condemned the extreme policies of the Bush/Cheney administration, has now expanded these policies, the change in this area being one in which Bush’s view that citizens could be held without charge has changed to Obama’s view that they can be summarily killed upon the “battlefield,” which conveniently extends everywhere.
The cheers that accompany these changes are more terrifying, however, because they virtually guarantee that the policies will expand further, perhaps stretching to alleged “terrorists” living here at home. In fact, last week I read about an ATF raid in Omaha which featured tank-like vehicles and federal officers decked out in military garb enforcing federal gun laws. As I listened to the cheers of most people and all the papers, grateful that the government is getting “tough on crime,” I wondered how long until the local police will follow suit and how long until military tactics overseas become police tactics here at home.
Now is a good time to revise the old poem about “First they came for the Terrorists, but I did not speak up for I was not a Terrorist,” remembering that our Founders, the drafters of the Bill of Rights, were themselves labelled this way. But it’s hard for people to hear these warnings over all the cheering and I fear the bipartisan stamp Obama has applied to these radical policies now guarantees they will expand in scope and remain for generations, perhaps becoming permanent.
Sadly, Franklin’s quote about those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither has, at least for me, ceased to be a warning, and become an accurate description of this country ten years after 9/11. It’s as if we’ve completely forgotten the reasons our Founders drafted these rights and feared the expansion of governmental power. How long will it be until we learn how important the rights that we so willingly surrendered truly are?
raff,
Yes, yes and yes followed by a “required for plausible deniability”.
Odd how the sound of tyranny rising and the sound of empire falling are almost identical . . .
Thanks, Professor Turley, for speaking truth to power. It is true that some societies are not yet evolved enough to maintain democracy. They are usually overcome with fear, prejudice, and factionalism caused by an ingrained aversion to Reason and her philosophical cousin, Justice. The world hasn’t seen a great republic devolve into tyranny in decades, but it seems Santayana’s verdict on the historically ignorant is as valid today as it was in 1905.
I agree with you that this policy must change, but I disagree respectfully on your statements concerning Ron Paul. Ron Paul only wants an impeachment for political reasons. Furthermore, this policy will not change until the Patriot Act and its kin are repealed. Besides, if the courts have refused to review the death warrant, how can it be an impeachable offense to carry it out?