By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network
A story by ABC News raises some very interesting ethical questions regarding the war on terrorists.
According to the story, the U.S. military had Anwar al Awlaki, believed to be a part of the al Qaeda leadership in Yemen that has planned attacks against the United States within its sights - literally - and had several opportunities to take him out. But the trigger was never pulled. Never pulled - because al Awlaki - is a U.S. citizen.
There are some, to be sure, who will argue that an American who turncoats against the United States - becomes an enemy of the state - is a fair target. But there are others who will argue that no American should be subjected to extrajudicial execution at the hands of the government. That as a U.S. citizen, al Awlaki deserves due process.
There are probably some who will say - why make an exception with American citizens? Don't the other suspected terrorists who have been - and who will be targeted deserving of judicial review?
These are interesting ethical and perhaps legal questions. The dilemma, of course, is that this is both an undeclared war and an undefined enemy who is asymmetrically attacking. Do we treat those who we believe to be the enemies as common criminals? Or do we treat them as military combatants - even though they wear no uniform and likely swear allegiance to no country.
Today, on Capitol Hill, during a Senate committee hearing on terrorism - this very question was raised. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wanted to know who decided to read the Miranda rights to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - charged in the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on final approach to Detroit Metro Airport.
McCain says that it's his understanding that Abdulmutallab was spilling the beans about his al Qaeda handlers until he was read his rights and a lawyer stepped in and told him to shut up.
Attempting to blow up an airplane in flight is a crime. Had someone tried this because he was a common criminal upset that the airline had lost his luggage he would have - of course - been read his rights - including the right to remain silent. McCain's question suggests that exceptions should be made when the suspect is a terrorist acting on behalf of al Qaeda.
Perhaps so. But then, how far do you go with this?
There are no easy answers to these questions. Whatever option is taken will result in consequences. Consequences that - one one hand - can mean a loss of personal liberties. And on the other - a terrorist attack against the homeland.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Julie Morse
Ande Bliss
Barbara Joanne
Marilyn Sands
Susie Lindau
RomanticPoetess
Salon.com
Comments
I take your point about the initial uncertainty concerning the motives and connections of the stager of the Boxer Rebellion. However, given that the guy's modus operandi was similar to Richard Reid's, there was certainly a possibility that he was a terrorist who could have been part of a larger coordinated attack in progress, as was the case with 9/11. Therefore, his original questioning sans mouthpiece was clearly legal and unassailable.
In the 50-minute questioning session that followed, it became clear that he was an Al-Qaeda operative. Giving him his Miranda warning and a lawyer at that point was an unforgiveable blunder and whoever committed it should be fired. The party line that all possible intelligence was gathered in those 50 minutes is yet another Big Lie that the Obama administration would ask the public to swallow in the aftermath of the Massachusetts Miracle.
And speaking of firings, I rather like McG's method of cutting the Gordian Knot.
Since we all agree that terrorism is an especially heinous crime, should we all also agree that no trial should be necessary -- a mere accusation (made by officials protected by secrecy, of course) is adequate to have the alleged perpetrator snuffed?
But hey, there are other heinous crimes too. What about child pornographers? Aren't they scum too? Why should such scum be given the benefit of a trial? Or what about drug runners? What about murderers? Won't it be a great savings when our legal system becomes flexible enough to deal with all these dangerous criminals by extra-legally, by executive order?
Someday the President will be able to accuse anyone of any heinous crime, and have them rubbed out without further waste of time. Then we will all be safe.
...take his out...
...then say, "Oops, sorry."
Yup...it is a path in a direction I'd rather not take...but if you are in the clutches of an alligator, you don't worry about whether or not it is an endangered species if you have a gun!
By the way..."terrorism" and "counterterrorism" often are the same thing...just depends on who is doing what to whom.
And to some "wars of liberation" are just terrorism in disguise.
That is a tough nut.
How about beefing up our intelligence services, getting the goods on these people and prosecuting them accordingly?
Bart Hawkins' comment illustrates what could happen if we follow this route to its logical conclusion.
I agree…I hate the notion of going down that path.
But like I said in my last post…
…if an alligator has got you in its grasp…and you have a gun…
…you don’t want to be concerned with whether or not the alligator is an endangered species.
Profiling is also deemed unacceptable for some…claiming grandma and swarthy Mid-Easterner should not be treated differently.
Okay…but I hope this honestly has more to do with intelligent reasoning than with a desire to provoke laughter among Bin Laden and his cohorts.
The varying points of view illustrate how difficult these questions are. There are unfortunate and unfair consequences no matter what you do - and what you don't do.
I think we all hope for a system that both protects us as best it can from terrorist attacks but that also defines and protects individual civil liberties. How to reach each without excluding the other is the challenge.
We will lose something.
Democracy often reduces to a trade-off…because democracy is hard. Anarchy is easy.
We cannot all have pure freedom. Stop signs and traffic lights have to exist.
The enemies of democracy have a huge advantage because of that.
Just as chaos would result if we did away with stop signs and traffic lights (in order to give everyone as much freedom as possible)…so too would chaos result if we do not take NECESSARY precautions (read that, limit some freedoms and rights).
I hate that things have to go in this direction…but being realistic has lots going for it too. And at times, “being realistic” trumps some of the concerns you mention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Gary, there are no easy answers, particularly when we are
talking about executing an individual. What confuses this administration and many of its dedicated followers is that they are looking at terrorists as "criminals" as you would in civil court..and not as terrorists whose aim is to create fear in the general population with the murder of innocent men, woman and children.
What the Obama administration has done, is emascualte the system, viewing acts of terrorism as primarily individual criminal acts not subject to the UCMJ...unless, of course, it fits a political agenda as is the proposed trial in civil court of KSM in New York City.
..."I agree that it will be a grave error if by negligence we permit the
military law to become emasculated by allowing lawyers to inject into it the principles derived from their practice in the civil courts, which belong to a totally different system of jurisprudence.
The object of the civil law is to secure to every human being in a
community all the liberty, security, and happiness possible, consistent with the safety of all. The object of military law is to govern armies composed of strong men, so as to be capable of exercising the largest measure of force at the will of the nation.
These objects are as wide apart as the poles, and each requires its
own separate system of laws, statute and common. "
General William T.Sherman
We are at war! If someone is identified clearly as a person who would do harm to Americans, he should be tried before his "peers" of soldiers under the U.S. Code of Military Justice...in a military tribunal, in absentia if necessary, and if found guilty, he forfiets his right to life.
Somewhere in this country there should be people in leadership that have "common sense". I think the American public knows the difference between a child molester, a murderer, and a jihadist terrorist. I don't believe this administration shares the public's view as the seek some "utopian" progressive paradise.