The killing of U.S resident Anwar al-Alwaki - Research Paper Example

The killing of U.S resident Anwar al-Alwaki In 2011, U.S unmanned aircrafts took off from an airfield that the Central Intelligence agency had constructed in Southern part of Saudi Arabia. The U.S drones targeted trucks that the U.S military believed carried suspected terrorists. In a deadly blow to the Al-Qaeda, the U.S drones killed two American residents who played a big part in inspiring Al-Qaeda attacks against the United States and Yemen. Among the killed terrorists were the American born Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (Isikoff, 2012). In a statement, the U.S president termed the killing as a tragedy and a blow to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian world and congratulated the U.S prosperous alliance with the security forces from Yemen. President Obama sought to justify the killing by stating that Anwar and his Al-Qaeda affiliates guided a failed trial or attempt to bomb an airplane in December 2009 during Christmas celebrations. Further, the president stated that Anwar also directed a failed trial to bomb an American cargo aircraft in 2010 (CBSNEWS.Com, 2012). The killing of Anwar al-Alwaki by a missile assault elicited a heated debate on the U.S justification of using lethal force against American citizens. For the first time since the end of American civil war, the U.S government had conducted an intentional and deliberate killing or murder of an American resident or citizen as a wartime foe and in absence of trial. The American government tried to keep the matter a secret but the choice to hunt and murder Anwar became an issue of public debate and scrutiny. Some American wondered the limitation of the powers of the president if he can order the killing of Americans abroad based on secret intelligence. It is significant to note that the killings of Anwar in Yemen brought in new information about the intelligence, military and legal challenges that the U.S government faced. This is because it shows the risks or perils of war, depending on missile strike from drone rarely recognized by the U.S citizens and intricate justifications written for only a selected few officials to read (The New Times, 2013). It is believed that Anwar al-Alwaki and Samir Khan who killed in the drone strike were al-Qaeda operational leader in Yemen. The two were U.S citizens who had never been accused by the American government nor indicted with any crime. The secrecy behind such drone strikes emerged as major issue because of the legal and ethical issues involved in the killings (Wilson Center, 2012). Information from the U.S department of Justice asserted that the drone missile strike that killed Anwar, an Al-Qaeda affiliate whose death was justified by the government, also murdered Samir Khan, who the officials had asserted was a real danger capable to warrant being specifically aimed or targeted. The killing of Anwar in Yemen was justified and ethical because Anwar was an evolving danger or threat in that by the moment the U.S and Yemen intelligence found him, he had been under the watch list of the C.I.A for more than ten years. For instance, in 1999, he was the first to appear on the F.B.I list because of his link with militants and in 2001, after the attacks in the U.S, he interrogated by U.S officials about his association with the hijackers at his mosque in Virginia and San Diego. In addition, when Anwar left the U.S in 2001, he supported the idea that the United States was officially at war with the Muslim community. In Yemen and Britain where he was jailed for eighteen months, Anwar hinted closer to a full support of terrorist activities and the use of violence (Mazetti & Scott, 2013). In 2008, the F.B.I asserted that their investigations have revealed that Anwar al-Alwaki was growing up as a radicalizer. In 2009, when Nidal Malik Hasan serving as a psychiatrist in the U.S army opened fire, murdering thirteen people in Texas, Anwar found his popularity when investigators found out that he been occasionally communicating with Anwar al-Alwaki. After four days, Anwar posted on his blog praising the activity of Nidal Malik Hasan. For instance, he stated that Nidal is a reasonable man who could not stand up living the contradiction of serving the U.S army that is at war with his Islam and being a Muslim (Wilson Center, 2012). The American government argued that there are circumstances that forces it to use lethal force outside the place of hostility against American citizens who is believed to be a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or has connection with the force of Al-Qaeda. In this sense, the use of lethal force against an American citizen associated with al-Qaeda and is believed to have engaged in planning operations to kill American citizens. The U.S department of defense asserted in this manner, it would be lawful for the government to use force. In addition, the use of force against Anwar was justified because his capture was infeasible and that his killing was conducted in accordance with the war law principles. The president of the United States has powers to react to imminent risk or threat posed by al-Qaeda forces and its affiliated forces emanating from the U.S constitution responsibility to protect or guard the country which is the inherent right of the U.S to self and national defense under international law. Based on these powers, the president of the U.S may apply force against al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces. In the case of Anwar al-Alwaki, he was linked to al-Qaeda and was seen as a threat to the security of the U.S and its citizens. In the circumstance of Anwar al-Alwaki, the president had the authority to order assault against U.S citizens without particular knowledge of where or when the assault against the American citizen might occur (Dow, 2013). The American constitution does not demand the president to holdup an action until certain theoretical based end-phase of planning when the exact place, time, and way of an assault become clear. The killing of U.S citizens abroad such as al-Alwaki does not go against the constitutional protection presented to the American residents. Such killing would be perceived as war crime since Anwar has been seen as a threat to the U.S security. This is was not an assassination since it was a move for self-defense. The lethal operation against an American citizen abroad whose behaviors pose a threat of aggressive and violent assault against the U.S would be a legal act of national defense that would not go against the assassination ban. In the same manner, the use of lethal force by the military is in line with the war policies against a person who is a legal military aim would not go against the assassination ban and is lawful (Dozier, 2012). It is undeniable and unfortunate that some of the threat that the U.S experience come from few American citizens who have decided to make aggressive and violent assaults against the U.S while in foreign countries. Based on Supreme Court decisions and old legal codes presented during the Second World War and the contemporary conflict, it is justifiable and reasonable to argue that American citizens are not immune from being aimed or targeted by the U.S military. However, it vital to note that it does imply that government must be responsible for all necessary constitutional considerations in line with the American citizens in foreign countries-even those leading attempts to murder innocent Americans (Department of Justice, 2012). The relevant clause to this matter is the Fifth Amendment, which according to the due process article; the American government may not deny a U.S resident his or her life in absence of the due process policy or law. However, the Supreme Court has asserted that the due process does not guarantee American citizens to act in unlawful manner in that it allows procedural security that rely on particular circumstances. The case involving the killing of U.S resident Anwar al-Alwaki in Yemen, private interests influenced negatively government’s interests to guard or protect its people. In such incidence, the security operations of the United States was at risk, therefore, due process considers the facts of military combat (Department of Justice, 2012). The use of the American drones in the fight against terrorism especially al-Qaeda is justifiable because it has saved the lives of many American soldiers and helped extract terrorists from battlefields. It is acceptable to use unmanned aircrafts in counterterrorism operations but the American government needs to formulate a way of delivering its decisions to the public about their target, particularly when the aim is an American citizen (Wilson Center, 2012). This is because if the government informs the public about the target and the process, the information is more credible and it can easily justify its accuracy and legality of its decisions. All this data can be conveyed to the people in some manner without risking the sensitive and significant intelligence. The strikes by the U.S military are ethical because they conform to the code of necessity, the demand that the target or the aim poses specific military value. In this war, people who belong to al-Qaeda and its affiliates are legitimate targets by the military. The military has powers to aim them using lethal force just like enemy leaders have been targeted in the past conflicts such the Japanese and German army chiefs during the Second World War (Wilson Center, 2012). In sum, the U.S killing of American citizens linked to al-Qaeda is legal and ethical. The legality issue is that the president is given powers to order strikes against al-Qaeda suspects such as Anwar-al-Alwaki for national defense purposes. The ethical issue involved is the role of the government to protect innocent Americans from a possible attack from its enemies. Therefore, the killing of Anwar al-Alwaki was justified and ethical. References CBSNEWS. Com. (September 30, 2011). Al-Qaeda Anwar al-Alwaki killed in Yemen. Retrieved on 10 April 2013 from http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162- 20113732.html Department of Justice. (March 5, 2012). Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University school of law. Retrieved 10 April 2012. Department of Justice. (2012). Department of justice white paper. Retrieved on 10 April 2013 from lecture notes. Dozier, K. (May 21, 2012). White house weighs question of who picks al-Qaeda target special operation drone strikes. Retrieved on 10 April 2013 from lecture notes. Dow, D. (March 10, 2013). When the U.S kills an American citizen. Retrieved on 10 April 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/opinion/when-the-us-kills-an-american- citizen.html?ref=anwaralawlaki Isikoff, M. (February 4, 2012). National investigative correspondent. Retrieved on 10 April 2013 from http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department- memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite Mazzetti, M., & Scott, Shane. (March 9, 2013). How a U.S citizen came to be in Americas cross hairs. Retrieved 10 April 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen- in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 The New York Times. (January 2, 2013). Misplaced secrecy on targeted killings. Retrieved on 10 April 2013. Wilson Center. (April 30, 2012). The efficacy and ethics of U.S counterterrorism strategy. Retrieved 10 April 2013 from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics- us-counterterrorism-strategy. Read More