Andrew Sullivan's defense of President Obama's claimed power to have American citizens assassinated nicely reveals much of the illogic behind, and many of the dangers inherent in, America's Forever War. Let's examine it point by point.
1. Assassination of American citizens, even if arguably extreme, has only been ordered applied, so far as we know, to four individuals.
When the government attempts to claim some controversial power, it tends to establish the alleged principle behind that power through the facts most convenient for its case. It's no coincidence, therefore, that the government has used Anwar al-Awlaki, whose name and face are a perfect fit for the popular image of Scary Foreign Terrorist, to make its case for a presidential assassination power. From a public relations perspective, it would have been more difficult to establish the power through the announcement of the impending assassination of someone named, say, Mike Miller, a white Christian. For the same reason, Jose Padilla was a good choice for the test case the Bush administration used to establish its power to arrest American citizens on American soil, hold them incommunicado in military facilities, and try them in military commissions. Similarly, the CIA was careful to introduce the news about its torture tapes with a low number -- just two or three -- and then, once the principle of the tapes had been established in the public mind, to mention the real (as far as we know) number, which was ninety-two.
Imagine you're a top West Wing spinmeister discussing how to recruit influence-makers into supporting the president's power to assassinate American citizens. Would you claim the power as broadly as possible, right up front? Or would you soft-pedal it, by initially attaching the power to one man with a dark beard and a scary-sounding name? The answer is obvious. Then, later, once the principle has been established, you can use it more expansively, knowing the influence-makers will have a hard time reversing themselves because, after all, they've already supported the principle, and knowing that the public will go along because now it's been properly inoculated against the shock of a full-blown admission.
But even leaving all that aside, the "but it was done to only a few people" argument is pretty weak. The acceptability of government conduct ought to turn on its legality, not on how many people were subjected to it. Presumably Sullivan wouldn't offer this defense of government conduct if the conduct in question had been torture, though of course this was a primary Bush administration defense of its torture regimen -- that only three people were waterboarded.
2. We know Anwar al-Awlaki is a member of al Qaeda because we can find information to this effect on Wikipedia and in independent news reports.
This argument turns on how much we ought to trust the government when it claims someone is so dangerous that the person merits extrajudicial killing (or, with regard to another power Obama claims for himself, so dangerous that he must be imprisoned forever without charge, trial, or conviction). Logically, I would expect that if the government has evidence compelling enough to justify assassinating (or imprisoning forever) an American citizen, the government would prove its case in court. And I'd be comforted if the government would take the trouble to do so, as I have an admittedly pre-9/11 attachment to the notion that, as the Fifth Amendment puts it, "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." In fact, given both the constitutional requirements and public relations imperatives in play, when the government refuses to make its case in court, I can't help but suspect just as a matter of logic that its case is in fact weaker than one might like a case for assassination to be.
It's especially relevant in this regard that Sullivan repeatedly bases his defense of the government's claimed power to assassinate Awlaki on Awlaki's alleged treason. Yet Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution provides, "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." So it's not just desirable that the government prove allegations like the ones against Awlaki in court; it's constitutionally required (and Sullivan himself seems uncomfortable with his call that Awlaki be executed on the basis of a Wikipedia entry and some news articles, because later in his post he suggests that the government does have some sort of duty to "reiterate" its case in court, if only as part of a more persuasive public relations effort. And note the use of that word, "reiterate" -- Sullivan seems to sense, correctly, that the news reports he cites as evidence are based, as such reports so often are, on government whispers).
So both logically and constitutionally, the government really shouldn't be assassinating American citizens just because Wikipedia and independent news reports claim they're doing bad things. But let's leave logic and the Constitution aside for the moment and instead examine the empirical case for trusting governmental claims that certain people are so bad they must be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld once assured America that the 800 or so prisoners we had locked up in Guantanamo were "the worst of the worst." It turns out not only that most of them were innocent, but that the government knew they were innocent. And indeed, most of them have since been quietly released. Guantanamo is, of course, just one instance, and the history of successive governmental lying is so long and consistent I always find it baffling when someone reflexively treats government claims as a sufficiently trustworthy basis for imprisonment and execution.
We've all had the experience of knowing someone who we realize over time has a tendency to fib. When we make that discovery, immediately thereafter we begin to discount that person's unverified claims. This is just a common-sense, automatic, adult reaction to experience in the world. And yet, when it comes to the government, no matter how many times we're subjected to much worse than mere fibbing -- whether it's Guantanamo, or WMDs, or the scapegoating and persecution of Steven Hatfill as the anthrax killer, or the Pat Tillman coverup, to name only a few of the more recent instances of government lies -- some people will continue to trust governmental assertions as though the government has an unblemished record of truth-telling. I don't know how to explain this irrational credulity. My best guess is it has something to do with denial born of the pain of knowing someone you'd like to trust is in fact a habitual liar.
3. It's okay for the president to order the assassination of Americans we know through Wikipedia and independent news reports are terrorists, as long as the assassinations are done abroad and not on US soil.
This is just incoherent. Why would it be okay to assassinate a treasonous, imminent threat to thousands of American lives when he's abroad, but not okay when he's on American soil? If anything, you'd think the treasonous, traitorous, threatening, inciting, dangerous, spiritual-advisor-to-mass-murderers (to quote Sullivan's case against Awlaki) terrorist would be even more of a threat in closer proximity to his American targets. Why would we want to offer such a dangerous terrorist sanctuary on the very soil he seeks to soak with American blood?
I like that last line. There's something satisfying about getting emotional and trying to whip up others, too (plus I'm a sucker for alliteration). All that logic and devotion to the Constitution was starting to tire me out. But look, the point is, if the president can order the assassination abroad of citizens because he deems them dangerous, he ought to be able to have them assassinated at home, too. Suggesting otherwise feels almost like the kind of dodge I discuss in my response to Sullivan's first argument about the assassinations being limited in number. The message is, don't worry, you asleep in your beds have nothing to fear from this program, which only applies abroad. But because the principle behind the power applies at home, too, eventually the program can be expanded everywhere. That's the way I'd play it, anyway, if I were introducing the program and trying to get the public comfortable with it.
4. We are at war.
This is really Sullivan's central claim -- after all, the title of his piece is "Yes, We Are At War," and he notes about a dozen times in the text itself that We Are At War. He offers some lip service to the notion that the war is not of the traditional variety, but the nature of this "war" is in fact the heart of the matter.
The laws of war don't require, and we don't expect, our soldiers to capture enemy soldiers who are firing at them on the battlefield. But what happens when we expand the concept of "war" to encompass the entire world? To continue for an indefinite period? And to include anyone, because there are no longer meaningful categories such as "soldiers" and "civilians?" That is, when there's no way of determining where the war is being waged, or against whom, or for how long?
It's hard to say for sure, because as far as I know outside Nineteen Eighty-Four it's never been tried before. But I can see some worrying trends. First, many people will start ignoring the Constitution and its requirement that only Congress can declare war. Yes, there were two Authorizations for Use of Military Force -- the first, against those who the President determined "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks; the second, against Iraq. The first might apply to Awlaki, but it's telling that Sullivan doesn't ever bother to cite it. For many people, and I suspect Sullivan is one of them, war is more a state of mind than a condition of hostilities. How else to explain his claim -- which would be scary if it weren't so obviously absurd -- that, "There is no 'due process' in wartime"? The original legal authorization, such as it was, is forgotten, and "We Are at War!" becomes the all-purpose excuse for all government excesses and the all-purpose dismissal all civil liberties concerns.
(For more on this, I recommend Chris Hedge's superb War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning).
"We have every right, indeed a duty, to kill them after they have killed us by the thousands and before they kill us again."
Rather than articulating an objective (crippling al Qaeda? Reducing the threat of terrorism to manageable levels, as we do for crime? Ending tyranny in our world? Sullivan doesn't say), and then explaining why a given set of tactics is well-suited for achieving that objective, Sullivan repeatedly argues for war itself, and everything that war entails. And why not? War has its own logic, and with a war as all encompassing as the one we're in, that logic takes on a powerful and seductive life of its own. Once you accept, and embrace, that "We are at War," the rest, as they say, is just commentary.
Simply a case of the ends justifying the means. It is a dangerous road to travel.
I always felt we should have simply treated any terrorist attack as a police matter.
The Constitutions also has a specific requirements for declaring war. We have been conditioned to accept violations of the Constitution at every level for decades.
The larger question is why were we ever allowed to hear about Anwar al-Awlaki from the start?
you said: "Imagine you're a top West Wing spinmeister discussing how to recruit influence-makers into supporting the president's power to assassinate American citizens. "
Imagine you already had this power and used it for years in secret successfully with no recourse. How could you bring it out of the shadows and get the public to approve of such a power?
that forces we the people to ask, why would our government want this power publicly approved?
Just wanted to say flipping fantastic article. Way to be clear and calm in the face of a disturbing issue.
1) Semi-good governance - the administration didn't want the program in total secrecy. This could be for transparency's sake (that is, the operation is still top secret, and the details classified, but the administration wasn't comfortable targeting US citizens for assassination in total privacy). More likely, it was to diffuse a potential political scandal down the road - imagine learning in 2012 that the Obama administration sought to assassinate American citizens in 2009.
2) Not-so-good governance - by asserting the power publicly, it gets wrapped into the already vast de facto powers of the presidency, and becomes less of a point of contention. That's why, for instance, we still have vigorous debates in this country about torture.
This is all an out growth of the mistaken belief that there is a certain guy, and if we just kill that one certain guy we'll "win" or at least be safer in some significant way. If you believe that you'll go to great lenghts to justify killing said guy. The problem is, there is not one guy, there will always be another individual to replace the last one. Of course in the process of getting one and then the next and so on, you will trade all the traditional liberty you once purported to hold dear.
Bravo! Simply bravo! I may have just developed a new crush.
I always find it baffling when someone reflexively treats government claims as a sufficiently trustworthy basis for imprisonment and execution.
Bear in mind this is the same Andrew Sullivan who once asserted that he wouldn't take a government official's word for it that Obama's birth certificate was real.
"The point of targeting key agents of al Qaeda for killing is precisely to fight a war as surgically and as morally as we can..."
War, morally? *sigh* Will Sullivan never learn?
All of this discussion about Obama's claim to the right to assassinate an American. A serious matter , yes, but what about the scores of people(55? 75? 95? - nobody seems to know exactly) already killed in the attempts to get Awlaki? That's 55+ assassinations/murders/war crimes(don't forget the wounded/maimed). That would seem to merit at least as much concern, and also be a refutation of any of Sullivan's justifications.
And, war creates markets for war products, one of the remaining exports that the US has. Sick.
If war is a state of mind, then Sullivan and millions like him are at war. That is how they see the world. They are trapped in a violent, soul-destroying state of war, because that is the way they perceive the world.
Their war can never be won, and it will only end when they die.
It's a very sad way to live. In fact, it's not living. It's dying.
Yet, why do you believe the official 9/11 story?
"War is Hell." one of the biggest moral cop-outs ever. It makes generally good people just say, well this is what war is and that's just how it has to be fought. It seems people have forgotten (especially many religious-oriented people) that the drafters of the Constitution actually derived these human rights as being conferred upon by The Creator Himself, thus they are not negotiable. What do we think this phrase means, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." government can only 'secure' these rights - it cannot define them as they have already been defined by The Almighty and this is 'self-evident'. You and I have these rights, because we were borne - not as a horse or a dog or a bird - but of a human mother. "Since when have you enslaved people though their mothers had borne them free!"
"My best guess is it has something to do with denial born of the pain of knowing someone you'd like to trust is in fact a habitual liar."
BINGO! Like a sick co-dependent relationship the abused "spouse" is faced with a lying, cheating, partner. After a drunken night of whoring and gambling with his mistresses he stumbles home and expects to be "served" by his cow-eyed wife. She mechanically does as shes done for ages hoping against hope that this time he'll finally change. Truly the definition of insanity. One can choose to stay in this dysfunctional arrangement or call for a divorce.
America's biographer, Gore Vidal, prescient for 7 decades, discusses this in 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace'. Good thing Greenwald is as constant, lucid and consistent as Vidal. He focuses, like you do, adroitly, on how far we've strayed from our core principles, how far we've strayed from the Constitution, Habeas Corpus, Bill of Rights and the rest of it....great post, thanks for taking the time to educate us and keep up the good fight.
There is a wonderful quote that I have always loved but cannot find now - something like, "you must protect the rights of those who least seem to deserve them to secure them for all...."