When did the CIA become so militarized, and why is it legal for the US Government to kill a US civilian without proper due process?
The U.S. government has reported that a CIA drone strike killed al-Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born terrorist, who has been reported to be active in Yemen. Al-Awlaki’s death is believed to be another setback for al-Qaeda, which has suffered the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, just five months ago. Al-Qaeda seems to be in a permanent decline as the U.S. focuses more resources on targeting terrorist networks in the Middle East.
There are two issues emerging from the story, however. First, when did the CIA become so militarized such that they posses unmanned drones with lethal weapons? Second, why is it legal for the United States to kill one of its citizens without a proper judicial process?
* Before I explore these issues, I would like to make clear that the means to which I am looking at the issue is by reason only. Emotion, which has been affected by the tragic experience of September 11th, will dictate that al-Awlaki’s death is justified and is going to provide more security for the general public at large. However, I am exploring a public inquiry to which only reason, not emotion, ought to be the only faculty in which we must use to look at the situation. The bases for that reasoning is the intellectual process that formed the U.S. Constitution, which is borrowed from Lockean philosophy, which is in turn part of the Enlightenment era, a time where reason was seen as the ultimate faculty for exploration.
Now, many news reports have confirmed that the CIA’s drone killed al-Awlaki, not the military. My question is: why didn’t the military kill al-Awlaki in the first place? The military has a variety of arsenal at its disposal to successfully execute the operation. Sure, the CIA might have the intelligence on the whereabouts of al-Awlaki, but couldn’t the CIA simply coordinate with the U.S. military to succeed in this operation.
Furthermore, why does the CIA have armed, unmanned drones in the first place? The CIA might probably respond that the unmanned drones are necessary to fulfill its duties. Even if we grant such response, then doesn’t that make the CIA necessarily a military organization and not a civilian one? If it is necessary for them to posses’ lethal arsenal that is military grade in order to fulfill their duties, then the CIA has become a military organization, not a civilian one.
If fighting terrorism requires a certain level of militarization of the CIA and perhaps other civilian agencies, then why not outright make homeland security a department of the military? Well, that will lead to an idea of a military state, which most Americans are not found of.
The second issue that arose from the killing of al-Awlaki was the lack of judicial process in which the government should have pressed formal charges. By reason, any U.S. citizen must have the opportunity to defend itself in a court of law (even in absentia) against the charges from the U.S. government.
While al-Awlaki was busy propagating al-Qaeda’s message in the Middle East, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) attempted to represent al-Awlaki on his behalf. The problem? There was a regulation in the Treasury Department that prohibited any American from engaging in any transaction with any individuals or organization that the federal government labeled as “Specifically Designated Global Terrorist”. Because al-Awlaki violated this rule, consequently no lawyers can legally represent him unless they receive a special license from the Treasury Department to do so.
What? A Treasury Department has the say in whether al-Awlaki can have legal representation by a 3rd party? It should be noted that it is not unusual for individuals to receive legal representation even if those individuals are physically absent in the court. (i.e. in absentia) Furthermore, the U.S. Government never filed any formal charges in the U.S. court of law. There is no record available whether the U.S. filed charges in a secret court, but even if they did, I don’t think that counts as a legitimate judicial due process.
A real judicial due process should be open and public. Yes, the U.S. Government can argue that such open environment could jeopardize US national intelligence, but in another way it shows that the US Government does not believe a fair, civilian led system, which is envisioned by the framers of our Constitution, is capable of dealing this terrorist and the new era of warfare. Furthermore, we just cannot have the executive branch unilaterally dictate without a judicial due process whether one person ought to die.
This is another missed opportunity. If al-Awlaki was successfully tried in a public, open court in absentia, it would have showed not only to the terrorists but the rest of the world that the US is able to handle even the monstrous criminals without jeopardizing who we are as a nation, which is defined by the principles and values articulated from the Enlightenment era. Crisis shouldn’t easily change who we are.
Work Cited
Central Intelligence Agency. "CIA Vision, Mission & Values." CIA Vision, Mission & Values - Central Intelligence Agency. https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-vision-mission-values/index.html (accessed October 3, 2011).
Greenwald, Glenn. "ACLU, CCR seek to have Obama enjoined from killing Awlaki without due process - Barack Obama - Salon.com." Politics - Salon.com. http://politics.salon.com/2010/08/03/awlaki/ (accessed October 3, 2011).
PEREZ, EVAN, and KEITH JOHNSON. "Killings Pose Legal and Moral Quandary - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203405504576603313410902934.html (accessed October 3, 2011).
