President Barack Obama and his administration chalked up another victory in their war on al-Qaida at the end of last month by killing operative Anwar al-Awlaki, who is also a U.S. citizen.
Rather than a rallying cry of victory for the ridding of a man who may have been more dangerous than Osama bin Laden, some Constitutional scholars cried foul because al-Awlaki was deprived of his right to a fair trial as an American citizen.
The Fifth Amendment says that no citizen can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The 14th Amendment reaffirms this, but expounds on it by adding that the government cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So the Constitution protects the right to a fair trial and equal protection of laws, but what Constitutional scholars fail to realize is that al-Awlaki presents a unique case.
He is a man who has declared war against his country, and trained numerous terrorists who had the destruction of America in their sight.
Nadal Malik Hasan, the gunman from Fort Hood, and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, either had contact with or were inspired by al-Awlaki. The scarier part is that these two men were both American citizens, Hasan by birth and Shahzad by naturalization.
The Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to detonate a bomb on an airplane on Christmas Day 2009, was also associated with al-Awlaki.
Anwar al-Awlaki was the figurehead of al-Qaida who renounced his country of birth and inspired all of these men.
So we must ask ourselves, do we put the rights of a rogue, treasonous citizen against the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocent Americans?
Well, before we answer that question, let’s look to history. The esteemed former President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and post-Civil War President Ulysses S. Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine South Carolina counties to enforce the rights of the 14th and 15th Amendments for Southern blacks. Court rights of individuals have been suspended when rights or lives of innocent Americans are at stake.
Constitutionally, this is justified. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution reads, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Lincoln and Grant appreciated the basic need for protecting innocent Americans, and found their groundings in not only common sense, but also the Constitution.
Perhaps even more alarming is the hypocritical stance the terrorist organization took regarding the death of al-Awlaki. Al-Qaeda argued that it violated U.S. law by assassinating one of its own citizens. This is curious, considering these terrorists murder innocent citizens, let alone carry weapons past airport security.
We appreciate the concern for basic American rights, but when a citizen renounces his country and is guilty of treason, we must reconsider their “deserved” loyalty.
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
