Rights of the Children of Ham

This past week has been eventful, to say the least, from activists massed in New York protesting something regarding Wall Street to further rumbles in Greece portending the collapse of Europe's dream of unity to the latest blow against al-Qaida when an aptly named Hellfire missile met Anwar al-Awlaki halfway and sent him on his merry way to discover in person the truth of stories of paradise and dozens of virgins. It is the latter topic that forms the burden of my song, for matters economic are harder to understand.

After a few days of quiet exultation, the dissenting voices began to be heard questioning the legality of executing al Awlaki. Amid the liberal voices was an unlikely protester in the person of Dick Cheney, demanding that the President recant his criticisms of Bush Administration policies. Perhaps nothing spurred me to think this over quite as much as our former vice president; it's usually a safe bet that we will be on opposite sides of near any argument. And as I listened to the debate, a sense of disquiet stole over me. True, there was much questioning of the legality of the strike, which executed an American citizen without trial or due process. And therein for me, lies the dilemma. I fully appreciate the concerns of the liberals, but inherent in their dissent is a suggestion that trial and due process should be extended only to American citizens but foreign nationals who we have identified as enemies may be eliminated by any means necessary.

To be fair to my liberal brethren they likely are not comfortable with our actions against non-citizens but must choose their battles with care, given the general mood in America. Public opinion is firmly in favor of muscular response to any perceived enemies and such niggling problems as lack of evidence and reasonable doubt are blithely brushed aside in favor of security over freedom. I've argued before that we need to heed the maxim that forsaking liberty for security oft leaves one with neither, but this is beyond pragmatic arguments. The overriding issue for me is moral: do we have the right to execute, without trial, anyone who we declare to be our enemy? Does it really matter if that person is an American citizen or not? From a narrow constitutional focus, the citizenship question is paramount, but the wider question should be if those guarantees of due process are meant only for those born within these blessed shores. We are not bound to uphold the rights of any foreign nationals against their treatment by their own government, but when their freedom and liberty are held forfeit by us, our actions should be constrained by the same constitutional fetters that protect citizens. It is no coincidence that any resident of the US enjoys all civil rights as an American. But when fear blinds us, we are happy to pretend that those rights are complimentary, to be withdrawn at our pleasure in the name of national security.

If, as I argue, non-Americans in the so called "war on terror" should enjoy the same protections as US citizens, one would argue that we would be hobbling ourselves and depriving ourselves of any chance of striking at our enemies as they plan attacks upon us. Some, including Christopher Hitchens argue along those lines basically that since al-Awlaki is evil and our enemy, actively engaged in attacking us we have the right to execute him, be he a citizen of USA or not. But this is a false argument, because it conflates two different issues; I do not gainsay the evil or enmity of al Awlaki, but that is no justification for executing anyone. But al Awlaki's engagement in attacking us is a very different matter - this is specific, concrete action that opens him to retaliation or even preemption. But what  I would prefer to see would be a clear policy declared by the government of who they perceive as enemies, what actions constitute a threat to America, and how the US government would respond. Transparency has been sorely lacking in government response to terrorism for the past ten years. Advocates of this secrecy might argue that we cannot reveal our knowledge to our enemies. But it is unlikely that bin Laden or al Awlaki expected anything but death from us, and President Bush was fairly clear that he intended to "get bin Laden, dead or alive". We do not have to reveal our powers, but it would be in everyone's interest if we tried these terrorists in-absentia if not in person. Once we have a conviction against them, their killing is simply an execution of sanctioned punishment. And if we cannot obtain a conviction of a terrorist when they're not even available to mount their own defense, then we really need to re-think our policies and ask ourselves if we know who our enemies really are. But most importantly, as a nation, we need to ask if we know what our policy truly is and once we declare our policy, are we comfortable with the ramifications. I cannot state for sure what policies I would support or oppose, but knowing those policies would be the first step along the path of decision.