|
01 October 2010
By Jacob G. Hornberger The Justice Department's motion to dismiss the
ACLU's lawsuit in the Anwar al-Awlaki case confirms,
once again, that when it comes to civil liberties, the
Obama administration is no different from the Bush
administration, and in fact is arguably much worse.
The al-Awlaki case involves President Obama's order
authorizing his military and paramilitary forces
(i.e., the CIA) to assassinate al-Awlaki, an American
citizen. The proposed assassination is being justified
under the Bush-Obama "war on terrorism." No warrants. No grand jury indictments. No jury
trials. No due process of law. Simply, assassination.
The assassination power now being wielded against
al-Awlaki isn't limited to him. The U.S. military and
the CIA can now assassinate any American they want.
All they need is the president's authorization; and,
according to him, he doesn't have to answer to anyone,
including Congress and the courts. Moreover, this omnipotent power to take out
Americans is not limited to Americans living overseas,
as al-Awlaki is doing. Remember the point that Bush
made, which Obama has enthusiastically embraced: that
the entire world, including the United States, is the
battlefield in the perpetual, worldwide "war on
terrorism" that the U.S. Empire is waging. That means that the president now has the power to
label any American he wants right here in the United
States as a terrorist and issue the order to his
forces: "Take him out, now, with bullets, bombs, or
drones." Does Obama need congressional authority before he
assassinates Americans? Nope. The notion is that, like
Bush, he's engaged in a real war, just like World War
I or World War II and, therefore, he has the authority
to kill Americans who, he claims, are supposedly
fighting on the other side. There's at least one big problem, however, with the
Bush-Obama formulation of their "war on terrorism":
Terrorism is a federal crime. It's on the books as a
federal crime. It's listed in the U.S. Code as a
federal crime. Thus, it's not surprising that dozens of terrorism
cases have been brought in the federal courts. Why
wouldn't they be? Since the U.S. Code, which defines
federal criminal offenses, lists terrorism among the
many federal crimes, it stands to reason that
suspected terrorists are brought to court to face
federal terrorism charges. As I have long pointed out, however, what the Bush
administration did after 9/11 is simply announce that
federal officials now had the option of treating
terrorism as either a federal crime or as an act of
war, whichever way they want to go. As I have also long pointed out, not only does the
Constitution not permit such an option to be
exercised, it would be difficult to find a better
example of a violation of the rule of law and equal
treatment under law than that. Either terrorism is a
crime (which it is) or it's an act of war (which it is
not). To permit U.S. officials to choose one way or
the other is the epitome of arbitrary, discretionary,
ad hoc, totalitarian power. Does an American have the right to secure judicial
review to prevent his assassination? Not according to
Barack Obama. The ACLU sued on behalf of al-Awlaki's father
seeking a federal court injunction against the
assassination. Barack Obama ordered his Justice
Department to seek an immediate dismissal of the suit.
His justification? The "state secrets doctrine," a
doctrine found nowhere in the Constitution. Obama is
arguing that to permit the suit to continue would mean
that people would learn the details of his
assassination program and the standards by which
Americans and others are targeted for assassination.
That would jeopardize national security, says Obama.
So there you have it. We now live in a country in
which the military and the CIA can now assassinate
Americans, on authorization of the president, who
doesn't have to explain to anyone the standards for
such assassinations. That's what now passes for a "free" country — the
omnipotent, non-reviewable power of the ruler and his
military and paramilitary forces to assassinate their
own people. Exactly who are the masters and who are the
servants in such a society? Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The
Future of Freedom Foundation.
|