 |
*post written with comments from fellow duck Ben O’Loughlin
The world media is reporting that Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed in Yemen – although details are very sketchy at this point.
It is very clear to me that Awlaki was not a particularly nice person – he advocated some rather terrible things (even before 9/11 supposedly radicalised him). His followers have been certainly linked to terrorism, including the Fort Hood shooting.
However, I must admit that I am somewhat troubled by this turn of events. Earlier this year I suggested that the targeted killing of bin Laden was acceptable under international law. He’s been linked to the financing and organising of terrorist attacks around the world and this was well established before his death.
But I have yet to see any reports that suggest that Awlaki has been tied to any material support for terrorist attacks. I think this changes the legal game substantially. It essentially is suggesting that *we* (whoever that is) are now targeting people for their ideas rather than they are actually doing. Pushed to its logical extreme, a person might unintentionally inspire others to commit violent acts. Should they be eliminated?
I’m no fan of Awlaki and I will certainly not mourn his passing, (really – he seems like a total jerk) but this raises serious questions about the targeted killing program, who is being targeted and why. Presumably, in the case of targeted killing, its important there is evidence BEFORE the killing, rather than a scrabble now to piece together a case, after the fact.
I hope there is evidence that he actually materially supported terrorism.
Edit: Will McCants has linked to an article at Foreign Policy from November 2010 which argues the case for taking out Awlaki. I still have mixed feelings about this. I will feel better if there is a case/dossier of evidence that can be brought forward – and I still maintain that this case should have been made before striking out at him.
Well, thanks for this, an example of compassionate IR experts with qualms about killing one of the most hated terrorist masterminds known worldwide, extensively credited as the inspiration for the Fort Hood massacre. Glenn Greenwald welcomes you to the anti-American fold. See: ‘Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen’.
If he’s actually a terrorist mastermind, it’s a legitimate killing. But we shouldn’t be offing every asshole with a soapbox. I’ve never heard of this guy, so I couldn’t say which he is, but that seems like a reasonable distinction to me.
Our commitment to the rule of law is also shown in the way we protect the people who have the least of our sympathies. If we don’t protect them, it is not the rule of law but mob rule. Justice and fair procedures are not a matter of majorities. The rule of law is not a free extra to democracy. On the contrary: They are often at odds with each other. I regularly try to explain this to my fellow Swiss citizens but it seems to be difficult to understand for most people living in a direct democratic system.
Saying this guy was some “mastermind” is a bit much, isn’t it? And, what is the test for “inspiration”? Seems rather vague and open-ended.
Would Josef Goebbels have been a legitimate target?
Harry
I do not thin Herr Goebles was a serving member of the Wehrmacht thus not a combatnet in the meaning the then current law of war or the new Geneva Conventions. Al-Awaki was a member of a combatent organzation in the meaning of the Geneva convetions. The cases are not comparble.
Stephanie – thanks for a thoughtful post about the Al-Awlaki case. I especially appreciate that your post does not focus on the citizenship issue, in contrast to many other usually reasonable voices (such as Yglesias).
The main issue clearly should be when it is justified to kill a person without a trial, no matter what the citizenship, and people may differ on where the line should be drawn. But any position that assumes that the president (or the country) should be able to do whatever he pleases to non-citizens, but nothing at all to citizens, is morally bankrupt. Yes, there may be some differences, but they should not be the main issue. If there is some moral cost to doing something to a citizen, whether killing or mere surveillance, then that cost need to also be considered for non-citizens. It is amazing how the same people who accept surveillance of millions of phone calls internationally get their knickers all in a twist if it turns out that some of these calls involve citizens. Same now with the targeting killings. It should not be (primarily) about the citizenship.
I think we’re confusing things with terms like “targeted killing,” which is a term of art rather than a category with specific meaning. Stripped of the hyperbole on both sides, the Awlaki killing tells a simple story: AQ is an organization that has declared war (on its own terms) against the United States. Awlaki made it plain that (1) he intends to hurt Americans and (2) he will not desist or surrender under any circumstances. So he was killed by the regime whose citizens he’s trying — by his own admission — to kill. That makes him an enemy casualty in a campaign of unconventional war waged by a non-state actor. And I agree that his citizenship doesn’t mean a thing; we killed U.S. citizens who fought for the Nazis without losing a whole lot of sleep over it, and we also killed people who had no obvious link to the death of any one person. This “should we kill Terrorist X” hand-wringing has become an intellectual parlor game only because we’ve had the luxury of time and distance to make it one.
This event is deeply troubling. Seems to me that we’ve got to wear the shoes of due process even when they pinch. We should have tried to grab the guy. Or bribe the right Yemenis to grab him.