Assassination Of A U.S. Citizen?

A week or so back, Ronald Sokol wrote an article regarding the ability of the United States government or military to assassinate a US Citizen living abroad. Really, the article involved the right of the government to assassinate anyone, but in this situation it involves Anwar Al-Awlaki, born on New Mexico, and now living in Yemen as a Muslim lecturer and reported Al-Qaeda recruiter. To begin, Sokol is an American lawyer and author, specializing in constitutional and civil rights law. He is an occasional contributor to the International Herald Tribune and the Christian Science Monitor opinion sections.

The argument Sokol draws upon to illustrate his opinion is something he calls the Nuremberg standard. He outlines the post WWII trials of German and Japanese officers, and how the United States government insisted on a proper trial for those accused, while the Soviet and British leaders would just as soon executed Nazi leaders on sight. The idea at the time was that the rule of law should override any other motivation, and that the principles set out in the U.S. Constitution should be extended to any and everyone, regardless of their alleged crimes or affiliation.

Sokol points out that this standard set 65 years ago has been difficult to abide by, especially by the American government. There were many assassination attempts through the 60s and 70s, and only in 1976 did President Ford specifically outlaw government assassination. This lasted until 2002, when President Bush allowed assassinations of "high level terrorists".

As a civil and constitutional rights lawyer, Ronald Sokol is very much in favor of due process for Anwar Al-Awlaki, and entirely opposed to any assassination attempt. He makes the argument that without proper judicial oversight, the branch of government that authorizes the killing operates without any checks or balances, and effectively disregards the intentions of the constitution. He makes a note that, of course, there are times when killing is necessary for our national defense, and that not every enemy combatant will be allowed full due process of the courts. But, in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, the threat posed to our national security is not so dire as to allow an execution without a proper trial.

Ronald Sokol is a very credible author on the subject of constitutional law, and I find his arguments in this case to be quite appropriate. Assassination as a form of justice is a very slippery slope, and there is a reason that many leaders have outlawed it in the past. The "rule of law" is mentioned as something to strive for, but something that is not easy to follow. In our history, we have strayed from the constitutional outlines of the "rule of law", but I have to agree with Sokol in saying that in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, there are no grounds allowing an assassination.