The death of those who pose a direct threat to citizens around the world is often a welcome relief. The case of terrorists Anwr al-Awlaki and Samir Khan is not any different.
Awlaki was born to Yemeni parents in New Mexico, and Khan was born to Pakistani parents in Saudi Arabia. These two men were killed in a CIA-led drone airstrike on Sept. 30.
Awlaki’s linkage to at least three attacks on U.S. soil and countless YouTube videos promoting violent action against the U.S. prove he wanted to harm the nation of his birth.
While I can honestly say that I’m glad he’s no longer around to cause trouble and arrange more attacks, I’m concerned that the acts of executing a U.S. citizen on foreign soil without charges or trial is a precedent that is dangerous.
Anwr al-Awlaki has been “allegedly” linked to a long list of operations, but without a trial and the chance to present evidence against him, those operations remain linked to Awlaki through the ambiguous term “allegedly.”
Is this a precedent we want to set for future trials of alleged criminals on foreign soil?
In assassinating a U.S. citizen without paying any mind to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we’ve stumbled down a path that strips accused Americans of their right to a fair trial and face his accusers in court.
The unconstitutionality of the assassination can be sidestepped through various legal manipulations and loopholes, but the Constitution is pretty clear that no person “may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
And when a group of policy makers unilaterally decide that a certain citizen should be targeted is not even close to being a representation of due process. I don’t want to fulfill Godwin’s Law here, but even Nazis got to face their accusers in Nuremberg.
Another of my greatest concerns and frustrations is the lack of foresight and legal adherence by the President Barack Obama and his administration. Obama promised to return America to the “moral high ground in the war on terror” in his 2009 signing of the order to close Guantanamo Bay.
He said he was signing the order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."
So much for Obama taking a different path from former President George W. Bush.
The last thing that bothers me and it happens to be what concerns me the most, is that this execution will only further the cause of al-Qaida and steel their resistance in carrying out more attacks.
In studying history of Islamic terrorism, it became clear to me that the martyrdom of a leader at the hands of the enemy only further bolsters the resolve of the now-dead leader’s followers. In the case of Sayyid Qutb, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, his cause was more easily controlled until his execution by Nasser’s forces in 1966.
After his martyrdom, Qutb’s followers became more resolved and more violent. I fear that’s what will happen with the execution of Awlaki. And if I’m right, we could be in for larger and more damaging terror attacks than we’ve ever seen before.
Reach the columnist at page.gerrick@asu.edu
