13 May 2010By Bill Quigley
Agents of the United States are openly trying to
assassinate Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a US
citizen, while he is in hiding in Yemen. Despite what
the apologists for assassination argue this is
illegal, immoral and unwise.
Assassinating Awlaki in the US would be murder, a
capital crime, punishable by life in prison or even
the death penalty. Morally, few would argue that
agents of the FBI or the CIA could murder the cleric
in the US. If it is illegal and immoral to kill a
Muslim cleric in the US why would it be legal, moral
or wise to do so in Yemen?
The Imam, who lived in the US for more than two
decades, is accused of using his powerful speaking and
teaching skills on behalf of terrorism. Authorities
say he was in e-mail contact with the Army Major
arrested for killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. He
is loosely linked to the Nigerian Christmas bomber.
The Times Square SUV bomber is reported to have
listened to the cleric’s online lectures.
Assassination has been illegal since 1976.
In 1976 U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive
Order 11905, Section 5(g) states “No employee of the
United States Government shall engage in, or conspire
to engage in, political assassination.” President
Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in
Executive Order 12333. Section 2.11 of that Order
states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of
the United States Government shall engage in, or
conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12
further says “Indirect participation. No agency of the
Intelligence Community shall participate in or request
any person to undertake activities forbidden by this
Order.”
The reason for the ban on assassinations was that the
CIA was involved in attempts to assassinate national
leaders opposed by the US. Among others, US forces
sought to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba, Patrice Lumumba
of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican
Republic, and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam.
Since 2001, the US has returned to the assassination
business. Along with its many other illegal actions,
the Bush-Cheney administration revived the use of
murder to eliminate political opponents across the
world.
How can murder be allowed? The Congressional Research
Service published a review of the ban on
assassinations in 2002. The review weakly suggested
“it might be sufficient” to interpret the War Power
resolutions passed by Congress after September 11,
2001 as legal authority to allow assassinations
outside the U.S. However, Congress authorized no war
against Yemen, no military strikes against anyone in
Yemen, nor authorized any assassination of anyone
anywhere.
Defenders of assassination argue that murder is a
legal part of the US strategy of “pre-emptive
self-defense” authorized by Congress after 9-11. Under
this argument, the US government is allowed to decide
who represents a possible threat to our nation
anywhere anytime and then exterminate them before they
can damage the US. They also argue that the decision
to target someone for assassination is legally secret.
Because any threat to the US triggers these powers,
under this line of argument, the US is in a permanent
war state and has these powers forever.
This is perfect for the apologists for assassination
because the government alone is thus investigator,
prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The public
will never know because the government can do all this
in secret. And since the war against terrorism is
permanent, the government can murder people forever.
Thus the last traces of the rule of law evaporate.
There is no transparency because no one gets to know.
There is no accountability because the executive has
unchecked authority.
Does anyone think the US would approve other nations
acting like this? Would it be acceptable or even
arguably legal for Iran or China or Israel or France
to secretly decide who their enemies are and then
execute them in the US if they find them here?
Apologists for assassination ease the way for the US
to kill anyone anywhere anytime. What is then the
logical next step in this argument? If we can secretly
kill US citizens who we decide are our enemies outside
the US, why not inside the US? And why not keep that
secret as well?
The US cannot be allowed to continue to exercise
secret authority to murder people. If the Bush
administration was doing this as openly as the Obama
administration is, people would be vocal about its
illegality, immorality and its lack of wisdom.
Murdering anyone in the US is a criminal act that is
prosecuted regularly in courts across this country.
Why should secret cold-blooded murder by government
forces outside the U.S. be treated any differently?
Bill Quigley is Legal Director of the Center for
Constitutional Rights and Professor at Loyola
University New Orleans College of Law. Quigley77@gmail.com
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments