On Feb. 10, mass media were embroiled with an intense debate. The debate was about the United States government’s possible drone strike on a U.S. citizen who lives abroad. The target is not just an ordinary U.S. citizen, but a terrorist affiliated with al-Qaeda who happens to hold a U.S. citizenship due to his original place of birth.
My question is: Why would the government even discuss conducting such an extreme measure? Why wouldn't they just send some UDT/NAVY SEAL teams to capture him and bring him to American soil for judicial proceedings? Under what authority and right can the government of the United States attempt to kill an American citizen by bombing without a trial or judicial review, ignoring fundamental human rights, not to mention the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? What happened to “due process” and “right in judicial proceedings?” There are so many questions to be answered, and I would like to narrate several points mentioned from a CNN debate, and past statements of government officials.
When the news was first released, the alleged American terrorist’s location was not revealed, but it is now confirmed that he is in Pakistan. We have to remember the Operation Neptune Spear (Osama bin Laden operation) was a U.S. only operation despite the fact the location was in Pakistan, a sovereign country with a legitimate government and authority. At the time, the United States government concluded that it is impossible to get help from the local government and that would have potential for an intelligence leakage. As a result, the operation was conducted without consulting or notifying the Pakistani government. This may explain why the government is not willing to capture the American terrorist; because it is nearly impossible.
We also have to recall what President Obama stated in his speech last May, right before the infamous disclosure by Edward Snowden:
“This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on the issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen—with a drone or a shotgun—without due process. Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America—and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot—his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team.”
Through this statement, it became clarified that the White House has a strong will to take down American terrorists. Furthermore, the Justice Department’s documents state that American citizens tied to al-Qaeda can be killed if “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” believes the target poses the “imminent threat” and adds that this “does not require government to have clear evidence.” For example, right after the 9/11 attack, at Yemen, a CIA drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and a top al-Qaeda leader who plotted several terror attacks.
However, numerous human rights advocates and others such as those with the American Civil Liberties Union strongly assert that “this goes way too far”. Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU legal director mentioned “if a government is engaged in killing its own citizens, it has an obligation to say more than it said. We should know what the evidence and legal theory is."
It is clear that many citizens are concerned the government is abusing its power regardless of the fact that the targets are terrorists who ‘pose imminent threats’ to the country. However, I have to raise a question regarding the fact that the people who oppose the government’s plan on killing an American terrorist are doing so because the target is an American. Does this mean that foreign personnel can be killed by bombing without any debate or a question regarding the human rights? Let me elaborate on this issue. Let’s say in 100 years, one certain country rises with a great power that stacks up to that of the current U.S. If there is an American who hates that certain country and ‘poses an imminent threat,' does that mean that this certain country can send a drone and kill this American?
It is extremely hard to answer such questions. I am not disputing any of the arguments on this issue. However, the questions have to be answered and controversies regarding the ‘untrustworthy government’ arguments should be solved.
Do you agree with Andrew? Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
