May 14 2010

Assassination Of An American Citizen Is Illegal & Unconstitutional

The Bush administration was raked over the coals, unfairly in my opinion, for recognizing how our national security guidelines allowed terrorists free reign once inside our borders prior to 9-11, and for taking steps to correct this deadly problem. The left-wing nuts went ape over the changes President Bush instituted, changes which required the Attorney General to request special, short term surveillance powers to ensure people here in the US or US citizens abroad, who are in contact with previously identified terrorists, were not planning or executing deadly attacks inside our borders. The changes to the NSA-FISA relationship, which I have discussed ad nauseam since the NY Times’ traitorous act of disclosing these changes (with complete falsehoods and hype), also require judicial branch review every 90 days. Each 90 day period the Attorney General had to demonstrate why there was sufficient probable-cause evidence to warrant the special scrutiny our national security agencies can bring to bear.

Also note that this completely legal act (now law per Congress) was set up with numerous checks and balances, judicial review and congressional oversight and reporting. The left were all up in arms because they feared somehow their nattering ramblings would be used for political benefit – a completely unfounded and paranoid view.

But here we are today with the Obama administration thwarting the constitution and this nation’s laws in a manner that makes the act of surveillance pale in comparison. The Obama administration has issued an assassination order on a US citizen, one Anwar al Aulaqi. Al Aulaqi is a radicalized cleric living in Yemen and tied to three recent terrorist attacks here in the US (Ft Hood, the Christmas Day Bombing attempt, the Times Square Bombing attempt). While I see al Aulaqi as a treasonous enemy combatant through his actions and words, the fact is he is still innocent until proven guilty in an open court of law by a jury of his peers.

And this is where the Obama administration is simply trampling our constitution and laws. If the administration wants to put a hit order out on al Aulaqi, they need to try and convict him in a court of law for crimes worthy of the death penalty. Only through the determination by a jury of al Aulaqi’s peers – we average Americans, as much as that relationship disgusts us – can a death warrant against a US citizen be deemed appropriate.

Folks, we are now on the slippery slope to oblivion. We need to stand up and stop this order and give this man due process. He was not captured on the battlefield, so he is not going to fall into the detention/interrogation bucket of cases being debated. If the Obama administration has proof of his treason and the threat  he poses as the basis of the assassination order, then bring it to court and convict the man.

What I don’t want to see is precedence established here, where any old political leader can determine in secrecy that a US Citizen is a threat and then have them eliminated without due process or cause. Hitler and all other murderous leaders throughout history were given this kind of supreme power, and the results have always been a horrific disaster of epic human carnage. Once we remove our protections for one individual, or allow them to be circumvented in the heat of a moment of panic, then we lose them for all time.

I implore the leaders in Congress to stop this madness and call on the administration to try al Aulaqi in absentia and obtain a conviction and death sentence for his crimes. Then, once he is no longer innocent but proven guilty, the means of his execution can be considered in light of the circumstances of the man’s crimes and his threat to our nation. But not before hand, not in the America my father fought to protect during World War II, or the one my son signed up to protect as a United States Marine. We have not fought our way as a nation for 200+ years as we reached the pinnacle of human achievement and freedom to just throw it away on the hasty whim of a power-mad individual.

We are more than that. We used to be better than this.

38 responses so far

38 Responses to “Assassination Of An American Citizen Is Illegal & Unconstitutional”

  1. WWS says:

    Good points, Tom. The main reason Andrew Johnson was so bitterly hated in the North, leading to his impeachment (conviction failing by one vote) was that shortly after he took office, he issued a blanket Presidential pardon/amnesty for all who had joined the rebellion, exempting only a few classes of rebel.

    (any West Point grads, such as R.E. Lee, other top officers, and the very wealthy, although it was argued that this was just so the carpetbaggers could legally steal their property)

    thus he personally shortcut the entire judicial process before it ever got started. Of course, whether this decision was very good or very bad has been bitterly argued for 150 years now. It certainly was very unpopular in the North at the time.

  2. jhstuart says:

    Is WWS suggesting a Presidential pardon for the jihadists?

  3. BarbaraS says:

    AJ’s point is if Obama can issue an assassination order for AwLaki, he can issue an assassination order for joe six pack with trumped up charges. It’s really easy to buy witnesses today in this climate. It’s a slippery slope and one we really don’t want to go down in view of the arbitrary actions of this administration. It sets a precedent we won’t like. It just gives more power to the government to control us and cause us to fear it.

  4. Terrye says:


    I know what AJ’s point is but unless joe six pack starts publicly calling for attacks on fellow Americans and aiding and abiding the likes of the Fort Hood killer, I doubt if there is a problem. This is not the first time our government has done something like this. Hell, we put out orders on wanted criminals that states plainly they can be killed by police if they resist in any way, trial or not.

    This is not a precedent. My God, how many Americans died at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

  5. Dan Kurt says:

    Damn it Al. Just when your blog was inching up on my must read sites you let loose a stinker.

    G**D Darn it Al, think it through. Anwar al Aulaqi is not an American in any real sense. At best he is an Islamisist*, just a deluded religious practitioner whose overriding loyalty is to his religion of conquest an as such a declared enemy of all who reside in the Dar al-Hab (that’s us).

    At worst he is a terrorist conspiring to bring harm to America and therefore a AINO ( American in name only ); one who by his actions has forfeited any claim to citizenship.

    Al, it has come down to Kill or be Killed. What will it take for you to realize this?

    Dan Kurt

  6. Dan Kurt says:

    Try again the *.


  7. dbostan says:

    I fully agree with AJ.
    We must resist the erosion of our civil liberties.
    As much as I despise this peace of scum, he is an American citizen.
    If we allow our freedoms to go bye-bye, maybe tomorrow, Obama may decide that you or me ought to be terminated for whatever reasons.
    But this brings to the forefront the left’s hypocrisy: when Bush was president, they screamed bloody murder for the patriot law, which did not do anything close to assassination.
    Not only they did not repeal the law after they won, but hey are carrying on murders.
    For the sake of our country we must impeach this president and restore our constitution.

  8. Redteam says:

    dbostan: are you sure?

    “As much as I despise this peace of scum, he is an American citizen.”

    As I said above, if a bank robber (let’s stipulate he is an American citizen) is shooting at a policeman, nobody insists on a trial to determine guilt before you take him out.

    This guy is shooting at Americans, he deserves to be taken out “first” who decides? common sense….

  9. Tom_Holsinger says:


    American and Yemen are not the same. They are different.

    War and peace are not the same. They are different.

    Joe Sixpack resides in America. AFAIK, killer drones are not operated in America. When they are, the most likely place they will operate is the Mexican border, not Ohio.

    Anwar al Aulaqi resides in Yemen. We do not have a treaty or executive agreement with Yemen which allows U.S. Marshals to serve arrest warrants in Yemen. We do not have a treaty or executive agreement with Yemen which allows American ground forces to engage in combat with enemy terrorists there. We have not conquered Yemen, overthrown its government and occupy Yemen with American ground forces.

    This makes it impossible for U.S. Marshals to serve an arrest warrant on Anwar al Aulaqi. It also makes it impossible for American ground forces to hunt him down on the ground.

    Anwar al Aulaqi is an enemy combatant. He is an unlawful enemy combatant, and he is engaged in hostilities with America. He is trying to kill me. He is trying to kill you. You do not seem to be familiar with the concept of self-defense against armed attack. You are definitely not familiar with the United States Constitution.

    Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, in a decision, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. He was an expert on the United States Constitution.

    Consider what rectal-cranial syndrome is.

  10. WWS says:

    JHStuart, that is the silliest possible way to interpret what I wrote.

    You might at least note that I said that was why Andrew Johnson was impeached. (but not convicted by one vote)

  11. Layman says:

    Try the bastard in absencia, or publicly get Congress to strip him of his citizenship… then kill him. I don’t like the idea of any President signing death warrants against US citizens.

    But then again, I come from the time when being a US citizen meant something. Now days, at least according to our open border/amnesty crowd, its pretty much worthless. No papers… no problem. No insurance… no problem. In state tuition discount… no problem. Protesting our (I’m in AZ) new immigration enforcement bill while waving Mexican flags… no problem. Find the Red, White, and Blue offensive… no problem.

    Hell, I’m going to Mexico to tend bar on the beach.

    Then I’ll overstay my tourist visa, demand welfare and free healthcare for my entire family, and demand that they teach my kids for free in their schools… IN ENGLISH.

    Oh, I almost forgot. I’ll demand that no local Mexican national display the Mexican flag or where Mexican colors on the Fourth of July. It might offend me.

  12. BarbaraS says:

    Thankyou, Layman. You first paragraph explains my position exactly.

    Tom Holsinger

    If you had read my comment you would see that the key word was in absentia. All I was saying was try him for treason, convict him as he is obviously guilty, strip him of his citizenship and issue a death sentence. Kill him with a drone, with an assassination team or whatever works. All I want is for it to be all out in the open for the public to be aware of and not behind closed doors in secrecy as the dems are prone to do. What makes you think that the fact that an American citizen is in this country would stop Obama if he wanted to get rid of that person? People disappear all the time.

    And, BTW, no one said anything about US marshals. No one said anything about arrest. No one said anything about extradition. I am aware we have no extradiction treaty with Yemen and I am also aware that the Yemen government declines oris unable to do anything about Aulaki. Your condescending tone is quite offensive. Also, you are wrong, I have read the Constitution backwards and forwards and have a copy in my desk. And no where does it give the executive the right to assassinate an American citizen. Also I realize probably better than you that these people want to kill us. You do AJ and myself a disservice by pretending we are naive in this matter. We have both been ranting for years about the laxity of the federal government in handling the terrorists. My whole point was to strip him of his citizenship and carry out the death d
    sentence. I just want it out in the open. And if you think Obama is not headed in the direction of eliminating American citizens, it is you who are naive. He said openly in an interview some years ago that probably 25 million Americans would have to die in order for him to implement his policies.

    As far as your last paragraph goes, you don’t understand civil discourse, do you? My answer is same back to you, fella.


    I understand your point. I just want it out in the open. Waco and Ruby Ridge should not set a precedent for killing American citizens by the government. IMHO, Bill Clinton and Janet Reno should have been tried in court for this atrocity and Bill Clinton should have been impeached AND removed from office. But then there were so many things he did that he should have been impeached for.

  13. BarbaraS says:


    You’ll catch cold trying that out in Mexico. They watch you all the time and make sure you don’t overstay your visa. Their immigration laws are very strict and put ours to shame just like the immigration laws all over the world except ours. They actually have zero tolerance. Besides, you would probably run up against the drug dealers on that beach.

  14. BarbaraS says:

    Tom Holsinger

    It is really funny that you say I am naive and don’t seem to understand these people want to kill me. In actuality, I am a firm believer in taking no prisoners. I have said kill these scum on the battlefield and Guantomino would never have been needed. The military took prisoners because that is what armies always do but these people are different and should be treated like the scum they are. Too many of them have been released (and gone back to killing our military) mainly because the libs screamed bloody murder when one of them was mistreated in any way.

  15. Terrye says:


    I am not saying Waco or Ruby Ridge were good things, or things that should set a precedent…I am saying that the state has long held it has the right to go after people or groups it considers to be enemies, there is nothing new in that.

    So what if they try him in absentia? What difference does that make? A ten minute trial, where the man is not even present to defend himself, after he has not been served with a warrant, where the outcome is a given, and then bam! they kill him. That makes a mockery out of the process.

    The point is it is established law, that if an American citizen joins forces with the enemy, his citizenship can be revoked. If the government were to anything here, it should be to revoke that citizenship formally…and then go after the guy.

    But I think they have every right to do this,

    And the military did not just take prisoners because that is what armies do, they took prisoners to get information from them.

  16. grumpyguy says:

    Send in the special forces, drag his radical rear end back home, try him in Montana, South Dakota, or Texas and be done with it.

    The upside, maybe such a raid would put the fear of God in government of Yemen.

  17. boogieman says:

    I signed up just to disagree with you. I have been a long time reader and love your blog. I agree that we can not trample on human rights, but to not target this guy is ridiculious. Think back to World War II. How many war crimes did we commit back then. A o-worker of mine talked about his father throwing Germans out of airplanes if they did not talk. After a few got thrown, out the remaining talked. I know that Germans are not American citizens, but in times of war we can not play nice. None of those soldiers were put on trial. Unlike today, in which soldiers are put on trial for slapping a terrorist that hung Americans from a bridge. This war is not going to be won in the courts.

  18. boogieman says:

    Think Bonnie and Clyde or John Dillenger. None of these people were given a fair trial. They were assasinated. This is not a new precedent! Stop thinking that we are being evil. There are just more ACLU lawyers watching.