Essay 2 rough draft

Monday May 2, 201, this date by itself seems like any other day, but knowing it is the day the US successfully killed Osama Bin Laden, makes it as an important day for the US and the war against al-Qaeda. The death of this prominent al-Qaeda member was taking unanimously as a success and something worthy of praise. The seal team given credit for the mission was idolized thought they remained anonymous, and the President’s decision to carry out the attack was not questioned. Later in 2011, another high-ranking official in an al-Qaeda affiliate was targeted and killed, but this killing created controversy over who the government was allowed to target. On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki and several others were killed in a CIA led drone strike in Yemen. When first looking at this, there seems to be little room for controversy over the killing. Anwar al-Awlaki had been placed on the CIA “kill or capture” list in April 2010, and had been accused of assisting multiple terror attempts on US soil since September 11. The controversy comes with Anwar al-Awlaki citizenship, being both an United States and Yeman citizen. He was the first United States Citizen to be placed the kill or capture list, and the first to be targeted and killed in an American lead attack.
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971, where is father studying agriculture. At the age of seven he moved to Yeman where he grew up. He returned to the US to receive and American education and received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and master’s degree in education (NY TIMES OFFICAL CITE LATER). He first attracted attention from the FBI in 1999 with allegations of contact with militants. At the time he was the vice president of an Islamic charity that was believed to be funneling money to terrorists. He also had connections with two of the hijackers from the September 11 attacks. They came to his mosque to pray prior to the attacks ( NY TIMES). His primary threats came with a website on online influence to reach a younger Islamic audience to convert them to Jihadist ways. He moved to London in 2002, but shortly after that returned to Yemen. In Yemen he was imprisoned for a short time and after being released his message became much more extreme and he gained more attention from the FBI and CIA.
Anwar al-Awlaki had communications with many terrorist caught in spoiled attack attempts. In December 2009, the “underwear bomber” plot was spoiled, when explosives did not detonate. Umar Abdulmutallab, the man responsible for the attempt, had been in contact with Anwar long before his attack. Similarily, Faisal Shazad who attempted to use a car bomb in Times Square and Nidal Hasan who went on a deadly shooting in Fort Hood, Texas, both were in contact with Anwar about their planned attacks. Anwar acknowledged contact with these men in early 2010, which subsequently led hid to be put on the CIA capture or kill list. Even with all these facts against him, and he clearly stated hate and desire to harm the US, he was still a citizen, so the legality of killing he comes to question.
Barrack Obama gave a statement on September 30, 2011 announcing the death of Anwar al-Awlaki calling it a major milestone in the fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. He said, “The death of Anwar is a major blow to al-Qaeda’s most active affiliate. He took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.” This statement given shortly after Anwar’s death was to inform American’s of what the President saw a something noteworthy. He belittled Anwar to the public through his announcement by stating Anwar’s goals of harming Americans. He presents all of Anwar’s goals, and failed terror plots to justify his death. Barrack Obama, though, never says that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen. This is done, so initially his decision to have Anwar killed is not questioned. Unless a person was aware of Anwar prior to Obama’s speech, they would not have known he was a US citizen. Through the rapid spread of this event through online media, Anwar’s background was soon revealed and people began to question his killing.
--how do I cite Obama’s speech
It was brought to light that the killing of a US citizen violated many rights guaranteed to citizens through the constitution. The fourth and fifth amendments call for no unreasonable seizures by the government and the right to due process of the law. On top of these, murder is illegal and bans on assassinations. Initially, no justification was given for Anwar’s killing, and because of this activist groups and Anwar’s father filled papers to sue the US government over the killing (NPR). The suit was soon thrown out though because “it involved state secrets and raised questions that should be answered in congress, not the courts” (NPR). In addition to these activist groups calling for justification on Anwar’s “murder”, it cause a controversial issue for politicians to take sides on. Ron Paul had very strong opinions on the matter calling the death an “assassination” on the premises of Anwar’s citizenship and lack of trial.
In response to the uproar on legal justification, the Obama administration released a legal memorandum the offered the needed justification. It was written shortly after September 11, and gave legal justification for acting despite bans on assassinations, and laws against murder. Charlie Savage a writer at the New York Times wrote an in-depth article looking into the justifications from the memorandum. His major issue with it was that the document did not directly state that the actions were justified when carried out against an American citizen. This fact aside, he continues to question the justification. It is not “murder” when killing a wartime enemy. This being true Savage questioned if the missile was fired by a CIA official, who does not wear a uniform, and is not really “at war”. The document stated that when possible, the militant should be captured. Diplomatic issues with placing soldiers on Yemen soil and the risk to American commandos could have been reason that a capture was not feasible, but Salvage points out that both these issues were ignored in the raid on Osama’s complex. So in fact it may have been possible to plan and execute a capture.
Though salvage points out flaws in the justification, parts of it he finds reasonable and true. The document stated that citizens who had joined an enemy force “can be detained and prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies” (CITED). It also looked into Anwar’s location, since he was not in the “hot battlefield,” but since he still posed a threat to the US, the justification still applied. The final point Savage looked into was Yemen’s Sovereignty and firing a missile on their soil, but permission had secretly been granted to the US to carry out the attack. Savage shows mixed opinions on the justification on the killing, looking in depth and questioning all the justification given by the Obama administration.
Online letter to the editors on the New York Times article “ When the US Kills an American Citizen” offers some unique takes on the justification as well. Neil Mullen writes:
Without the rule of law, we are left with might makes right. In this decade, we are the mightiest and may deploy drones or Navy Seals to kill those deemed guilty without a trial and proven evidence. In some future decade, another country may deploy such measures, legitimized by such precedent, against targets on our soil.
Mullen offers a unique opinion about law and power. The US cannot just do as it pleases with its power. It needs to have certain legal justification to carry out military attacks. The US may be the largest world power today, but some day another country could be carrying out similar attack on US soil, which would not settle well with government officials. George Wolf an army veteran had a very different opinion. He writes, “I think that it’s a clear-cut case. Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a United States citizen, but the moment he became actively involved in a military campaign against the United States, he became an enemy our military was obligated to fight and kill.” Having faced war, he knows anything has to be done to stop threats against his country. Because of this he does not see Anwar as a fellow citizen but as any other enemy.