Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

September 30, 2010

Killing a fellow citizen: Four frames on the present reality of Anwar al-Awlaki

Filed under: Legal Issues,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on September 30, 2010

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free. The Federalist No. 8, p. 33 (Hamilton)

–+–

The President will not confirm or deny, but it is likely a secret document has authorized agents of the government to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a citizen of the United States (shown above).  Mr. al-Awlaki has not — yet — been charged with crimes against the United States.  No court hearing or other aspect of regular due process has been undertaken to consider charges against the accused.

No matter how else we might disagree, I hope we can all agree that unilateral action by the executive to kill a citizen is a serious matter deserving careful consideration by citizens.

Last weekend a number of citizens gave the issue more careful attention than is typical of the blogosphere.  See context and comments at: al-Alwaki and us: Where do the rights of citizenship end?

In these comments — and elsewhere — I perceive four frames-of-reference being applied to the prospect of the President’s men or women killing our fellow citizen:

1. What is the most pragmatic choice? What decision and action is most likely to reduce the immediate threat of Mr. al-Awlaki?

2. What is the most ethical choice? What is most likely to reinforce sustainable relationships? (Some of the relationships are international, some interpersonal, some are relationships between values, others…?)

3. What is the best legal approach? What principle and/or precedent and/or argument preserves or advances an appropriate balance of liberty and security?

4. What is the best political choice? What decision-making and action-taking process is most likely to sustain democratic principles and practices under duress?

I understand the responsibilities of citizenship include listening to my government, listening to my fellow citizens, observing reality as best I can, and applying my values and reason to reach a decision — or identify further information needed to reach a decision or to justify a non-decision – which I should then communicate to my fellow citizens for their consideration.

Since the weekend I have tried to behave as a citizen and have concluded: 

  • There is sufficient pragmatic justification for the executive to take unilateral action to kill Mr. al-Awlaki.  
  • There is a substantial ethical justification for lethal action.  I can imagine a thoughtful chief executive feeling ethically compelled to take such action.
  • The authorization to kill a citizen without judicial review is almost certainly illegal and unconstitutional.
  • The political implications of unilateral lethal action by the executive against a citizen depend a great deal on what happens in the future and how the decision is used by others.

In other words, for me it is a split decision. (The confines of a blog — with any hope of being read — make it difficult to justify these conclusions.  But in links provided at the close of this post I point you to sources that had particular influence on my deliberations.)

This deliberating has, however, helped identify criteria by which I could square these four frames and reach a more coherent decision.   The legal framework for extraordinary executive action of this sort must be made much more explicit.   It is the secrecy of the executive in this matter that most offends our legal standards and generates the greatest potential for profound political mischief.

There is an urgent need — and the case of Mr. al-Awlaki presents the opportunity — to establish a new body of law that much more clearly and precisely sets out due process appropriate for the so-called Age of Terror or this Long War or our struggle against violent extremism.  Whatever we call this challenge,  we are faced with “continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger” and we do not need Alexander Hamilton (or even Lee Hamilton) to tell us why this is a threat. 

Among the strongest nations, once liberty is earned it is seldom taken away by outsiders.  But mortgaging liberty on a false promise of security is a recurring tale.  Too often the debt is called.   In his big, difficult, and wonderful book Terror and Consent, Philip Bobbitt writes,

The states of consent must develop rules that define what terrorism is, who is a terrorist, and what states can lawfully do to fight terrorists and terrorism. Unless we do this, we will bring our alliances to ruin as we appear to rampage around the world, declaring our enemies to be terrorists and ourselves to be above the law in retaliating against them. We will become, in the eyes of others, the supreme rogue states and will have no basis on which to justify our actions other than the simple assertion of our power. At the same time, we must preserve our open society by careful appreciation of the threat that terror poses to it and not by trying to minimize that reality or to appease the sensibilities of people who would wish it away… We must do this because an open society depends upon a government strong enough and foresighted enough to protect individual rights. If we fail to develop these legal standards, we will find we are progressively militarizing the domestic environment without having quite realized that we are at war. And, when a savage mass strike against us does come, we will react in a fury that ultimately does damage to our self-respect, our ideals, and our institutions (p. 394).

To avoid this self-generated harm there is a need for legislative action prior to the savage mass strike (or cumulative small strikes?).  What is effective and appropriate due process for a “state of continual danger”?  

An explicit legal structure and set of procedures is needed.  I advocate developing this through legislative action — as opposed to judicial action — to more fully expose issues involved.   The legislative process is much more adept at educating and involving citizens.  Through the legislative process we are more likely to cultivate the attitude of readiness and resilience that is most conducive to preserving our liberties.

The upcoming lame-duck session of Congress would be an opportune moment to open hearings on reforming due process guarantees for the present age.

For further consideration:

Pragmatic arguments

Times Topics: Anwar al Alwaki

Who is the world’s most dangerous man?

Anwar al Awlaki: the new Osama bin Laden?

Ethical arguments

Moral Man and Immoral Societyby Reinhold Neibuhr

The Irony of American Historyby Reinhold Neibuhr

Act and Being by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Legal arguments

Executive Order 11905, Section 5, paragraph g: Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force, September 18, 2001

Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld (I was especially taken by the Scalia dissent.)

Political arguments

Terror and Consent by Philip Bobbitt

The Federalist Papers by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay

Second Treatise of Government by John Locke

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

26 Comments »

Comment by Philip J. Palin

September 30, 2010 @ 6:22 am

There is a new videotape by al-Alwaki that is expected to go public today. I will have to be off line most of the day. If you see a link to the new video, please post the URL.

Comment by HISTORY DETECTIVE

September 30, 2010 @ 6:31 am

Avoid popularity; it has many snares, and no real benefit.
William Penn

It comes to real trust and it’s worth much more than fame. Sorrow is better than laughter. The heart is wise in the house of mourning. For wisdom is defence. Money is a defence. Ecclesiastes 7

You can’t see our shields. Seeing is believing, not seeing and believing is faith. Bankrupt them for offenses. Read Washington Post on Department of Defence time. Less strategy can produce more results, so keep everybody in Spirits. TGIF

Comment by William R. Cumming

September 30, 2010 @ 7:22 am

Okay a great post and Phil thanks for struggling with a very very complicated issue and trying to frame some kind of structure around this difficult problem for an freely elected government.

The current language on the restriction on “assassination” follows and was most recently reflected in E.O. 12333:
“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”

The troublesome workd “political” was long ago eliminated. And now the troublesome word is “assassination”! Still undefined. I leave to others to determine the definition and appropriateness of the choice of words. Personally I think there is NO EXISTING RESTRCITION under this definition in the situation involving Alwaki. I think the restriction should only apply to democractically elected leaders of recognized nation-states that either conduct or propose to conduct lethal operations against the political leadership of the US or its citizens. The fact that so little oversight of this issue has occurred since the Ford Administration by Congress may be the leading factor in my mind that Congress left fallow the fields plowed by Senator Frank Church and abandoned is leadership role in legislation on critical issues to a democracy.
That stated my disappointment with the Congress is not followed by my belief that the Judiciary has done its job. Since the STEEL SEIZURE case under Truman where each and every SCOTUS member review the Executives authority to conduct actions not grounded in law, Consitution or statutes specically, the Courts have hammered away at the previously wide-ranging power of the Executive to issue orders affecting the general public or special interest and not ordering Executive branch management and operations [this reflected in the disclaimer now part of all Executive orders indicating that NO private rights are created by the EO and no private attorney general can enforce any rights under that order). Oddly despite noting this elsewhere to a number of Editors of Law reviews and Constitutional scholars [is that what the President should be considered?] this trend has NOT been analyzed by legal scholarship anywhere outside of the Office of the Solicitor General of the US.

In other words the restriction may not be applicable IMO because of the language used and the legal status of that language being contained in an Executive Order. Oddly since a compendium produced and issued under the last days of the Reagan Adminstration copeis of extant Executive Orders are not available to the public without dint of much legal research. The Adminstrator of NARA [National Archives and Record Adminstration] should have as one of his/her hightest priorities the complete and updated versions of all Executive Orders in effect and annotated with any Judical analysis or Congressional analysis. FDR fought WWII initially with Exective Orders, the destroyer deal, and that day is probably long gone.
That stated, again I believe that ONLY elected leadership of democratic nation states that adopt the 1st Amendment of our Consitution as its lodestar should be protected from “assassination”! Time to get to work and yes President Obama let’s order the release now of all memorandum’s of law by the SG or OLC in DOJ discussing the Exectiver Order language described above and also analysis of the Judical trend limiting the power of the Executive to order or mandate internal control over the Executive Branch or the direct or indirect impacts on those not employed or contracted with the Executive Branch. And note there is legall no such thing as “color of authority” under the Constitution see C.J. John Marshall in Little v. Bareme (1803?)prohibiting action by anyone in the federal government not authorized to conduct the activity, even impliedly.

Comment by John Comiskey

September 30, 2010 @ 7:35 am

These are the times that try men’s souls.

-Thomas Paine

2010 –Anwar al-Awlaki et al need not try our souls nor our government or democratic way of life.

The legal framework for extraordinary executive action is implicit in the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Assuming that executive authorization to assassinate certain enemies of the state is ethical, pragmatic, and implicitly constitutional, explicit legislation affirmed by the Supreme Court is both logical and Constitutional.

IMHO, such a process would be a normative application of the dialectic process inherent to the Constitution. Appropriate legislation “might” afford the government and particularly the executive legal mechanisms to discharge his/her duties in the most extraordinary circumstances i.e. authorizing the assassination of enemies of the state (to include US citizens) in other than battlefield scenarios. That same legislation might provide the procedural justice that “appears” to be lacking in codified law, executive orders, and interpretations of the Constitution.

That said, effusive calls for democratic government demand incontrovertible evidence. In this instance the smoking gun of terrorism. The harsh truth is that the gun is often concealed. Hence, government officials do what they do to protect its citizens from those who have or appear to have guns and thus pose a threat. In the latter circumstance, the law (Criminal Procedural Law) explicitly says that the government need only be reasonable and not necessarily right. Might the proposed legislation define “reasonable?”

While new legislation might ameliorate the appearance of unconstrained government, the moral-pragmatic-political decision to assassinate suspected terrorists will, likely, dominate the debate and hopefully not the decision making process.

Comment by William R. Cumming

September 30, 2010 @ 8:54 am

Decided to also point out that enforcement of Executive Orders is completely unknown possibilty for a President! Does DOJ enforce? Does OMB enforce through budget?

That stated also point out that ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 of US Constitution starts out, in part, as follows:

Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence . . .”

Comment by Dan O'Connor

September 30, 2010 @ 10:48 am

I do not pretend to speak with the clarity and experience of Mr. Cummings or for that matter any attorney or law professional. Nor do I suppose to have the acumen of most of the participants in this blog. I do choose to present some alternative, maybe potentially provocative questions or points of view, as a means of provoking conversation. That said I believe this to be a very dangerous precedent in terms of Gov’t acting in its definition and/or interpretation of ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 of US Constitution in part, as follows:
“Congress shall have Power . . . provide for the common Defence . . , To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof .”
I believe this to be the real crux of this terrorism/homeland security debate. I choose not to speculate in this forum of the socializing of America, its politics and/or entitlement scheme. But it is a theme nonetheless.

We have ample evidence that in our “defense” we’ve intercepted, captured, and/or monitored all phone calls and are attempting to do the same with all email. We’re one warrant away from having our entire lives scrutinized by the Gov’t. (Please see Richard Jewel, 1996, Atlanta) Again, this is in our “defense”.

These are facts, not supposition. We have greatly impacted our citizens’ ability to move freely, diminished their expectation of privacy, and have elevated our scrutiny of them on behalf of them… its rather odd, actually.

Over regulation of every aspect of our lives seems to be growing and our citizens appearing to have less and less power to address it. One could make the case for this being one of the key ingredients for the rise of the Tea Party movement. It is ironic that the powers that be who paint these American citizens in such harsh tones would in other instances label the same language and rhetoric used by them as characterized hate speech.

Our particular way of life is an intricate balance; a push and shove of ideas, policies, and pragmatism. Is America different or do we simply like to think so?

So, I therefore make this case; is one man is responsible for this degree of angst?

ONE MAN???

UBL is not state sponsored, or at least not legitimately, he has no army, in terms of conventional forces, and he has no global impact, except in terms of possible fear factor.

Was he lucky or was he good?

His acolytes or followers, to include Anwar al-Awlaki may be linked or have been deemed to link to attacks in the United States and to the homegrown threat…. How big, how relevant, and how impactful the homegrown threat really remains to be seen.

That being said, when the Government has deemed one of its citizens an enemy of the state and issues a “kill” order on them, we should all pause for a second and reflect on what that means. There are provisions or at least there appears to be some interpretive room in the Constitution for making these decisions. Is that a righteous thing or simply a pragmatic one?

Reflect on this; how real and how large and how effective is terrorism as a threat to the United States? Not rhetorically but pragmatically.

Can a terrorist cause the damage that Katrina caused? If they were to smuggle a nuclear weapon(s) through and/over the border and we know this, why aren’t the borders secure?

Think pragmatism and not ideology. What can they actually do? Not theoretically, not red celled in some Gov’t subsidized think tank, not ginned up to pad budgets, but actually do? It must be asked. Is it our response to this threat more damaging to the United States than the threat in and of itself?

What is their capability versus our resilience? How fragile and afraid have we become?
Again, these questions must be asked. Are we creating a more secure, robust nation or creating fear?

Is it really a conglomeration of activity? Is it terrorism, black market economies, narco activity, trafficking, demographics, and a host of supplemental activity making terrorism the uber threat? Again simply a question.

How much treasure has been lost in the last 9 years protecting and defending? How many lives lost in “preventing” and pursuing? If we generally know were UBL is, why aren’t we “there”? It has been estimated on some sights that in excess of 303 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001. What if it’s only half? What if it’s only 10%…

If the people in the WTC were innocent are those in Afghanistan and Iraq as well? And yet, we cannot find the perpetrator… its troubling. Did we create this paradox? Is it actually more effective to fly a drone from 9000 miles away to assassinate someone that to send a two man team in with a rifle or poison? Is it honorable? Is using the drone a reasonable facsimile or degreed separation of an assassination or is it simply the new war? Are we “good” with separating ourselves in having higher value than others?

Are we good with that? I mean, should we all just stay back here and sent robots to wipe out families as collateral damage in hopes of getting one “guy”?

Please recognize the point I am hoping to make here. With so few of Americans now touched by service, do they realize how effective and how devastating our war machine and capability has become?

Again, simply a question.

The Government recently voted on and passed a health care law, a trillion dollar “law” much against the National will of its people. What else can the Government do unbeknownst and very openly against its citizen’s wishes? Is this the true product of terrorism?

Anwar al-Awlaki is an American Citizen. Has he forfeited the right; “. . .that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .”.

These are indeed the times that try men’s souls. Does a democratic government demand the incontrovertible evidence necessary for the conduct of such operations? Has our “progressiveness” as a Nation shaped our capability? We are not the same people of post WW2/fighting the “Communist menace”.

Or are we?

Terrorism’s primary motivation is to evoke behavior change upon its target. Terrorism is a political tool. If fear is terrorisms real desired yield and fear is an emotion, what are we doing about diminishing fear? Is fear real? Is it substantive? Does it have different outputs? Are political parties, agendas, constituencies, and movements all predicated on fear or the conquering of it? Are we afraid of UBL and his actions or are we afraid of ourselves and what we covet and want for ourselves? Do we fear our government or do we fear ourselves?

Maybe that might be the toughest question of all.

Comment by William R. Cumming

September 30, 2010 @ 11:30 am

Responding to Dan’s comments which raise excellent points in a highly personal opinion my problem is that since 9/11/01 much has been left to chance not calculation. Each Executive Branch component has its own ideas and designs and these are often fed through the incompetence of Congress because of the egos and hubris of the various members. As DAN points out it is Congress that is supposed to make the laws, not the Executive Branch but now the specter of so-called “Secret Law” raises its ugly head. There is no such thing as “SECRET LAW” and to the extent anyone in the Executive Branch thinks so they are a clear and present danger. Thus, I always come back to the Rule of Law as opposed to Man recognizing its limitations and deficiencies. I recently watched for probably the fifth or sixth time after many years the movie of 1966 “A Man For All Seasons”! I recommend it as addressing but not answering some of the issues raised. Each generation has its own rendevous with destiney in the sense of guarding and defending the best of the past, including democracy. Sometimes the issues arise in mysterious ways and are not all that clearly stated, but Phil in this and other posts has clearly stated the issue. The issue is what is the basis and doctrine and law that control extrajudicial killing of a US national, wherever he or she is located. The question posed is worthy of analysis whatever the answer and its long and short term impacts.

Comment by Dan O'Connor

September 30, 2010 @ 11:51 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg

Comment by William R. Cumming

September 30, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

SPOT ON as the modern British might say. Thank you DAN!

Comment by HISTORY DETECTIVE

September 30, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

Detective Cain got the shotgun under the chin and if you don’t get me my shotgun back, you will not be very happy with the shell game about to unfold. We’re four fold more dangerous than they are. Get snappin to it.

TGIF Cold lobster and white wine for lunch. For her at least. Stone soup for Cuba.

Comment by HISTORY DETECTIVE

October 1, 2010 @ 5:13 am

Planning a duck hunt. Anybody for duck soup? I suppose I could get them with a net and drag them in alive then slit their throats. Looks like mass starvation in Vuba as revolution slows. A duck in a double breasted suit and a goose in a uniform does not make for a revolution. Makes a fine comic strip and the airstrip is empty, except for the occasional varmint. Guys could run oil through gas lines. Sit and wait for milkman. Time to kill and a suicidal enemy. Fed tit dry and borrowed time from Chinese. Lame ducks in Washington and they find a plastic bag over his head. Better be a newspaper in it. Lots of foot dragging being made to look like business. Building a hotel on Park Place after house work. Need hotel on Boardwalk for wet work. Then cross Go and collect 200 clams. They’re all dead or as good as dead on arrival. We’ll see to it and fry in oil. You may per fur clam bake. I’ll clam up now.

Comment by William R. Cumming

October 1, 2010 @ 6:26 am

Expect a burst of ineffective false energy from the Administration between now and election and the lame duck looking very interesting. PELOSI the winner. Madame Defarge?

Comment by John Comiskey

October 1, 2010 @ 6:16 pm

“In government and intelligence, we assent to a degree of ambiguity.”
-Mark Lowenthal

Dan,
Your 10:48 Sep 30, 2010 post raises the crux of this blog if not the basis for homeland/national security.

1. Privacy and government scrutinization for our defense is a valid concern. The US government struggles with its obligation to provide for the common defense and simultaneously respect the rights of its citizens. Ultimately, the government “must” and should error on the side of providing for the common defense.
Common defense and national security are broad terms and subject to interpretation.
Legitimate concerns have been expressed about past and current abuses. Unfortunately, some of them are valid. However, some of the remedies of the Pike and Church Committees, though well intentioned, were later “thought/found ” to prohibit the actions that might have prevented 9/11. The Patriot Act is alleged to triumph civil liberties with Hoover-like vigor. Properly enforced, the legislation might provide for the common defense. Left unchecked, the Patriot Act might provide an unrecoverable Pyrrhic victory -the demise of democracy.
The first question raised is : why?
Terrorists hijack planes and crash them into buildings.
Terrorist secrete bombs in their shoes, underwear, baby carriages, and body cavities and detonate.
Terrorist are and are trying to acquire CBRNE to gas, burn, bomb, nuke, and to do other nefarious things
AQ and its affiliate terrorist organizations are radicalizing their and our young in the name of Allah to establish a global caliphate replete with Sharia Law.
The second question that has been answered by the man in the arena and not by the critic who remains in the audience: how then might the US government provide for the commons defense of such a foe?
The 9/11 Commission rebuked the agencies of the US Government for a “failure of imagination.” Affirmative, albeit provocative, countermeasures replete with imagination and vision provide a formidable [not perfect ] defense against the aforementioned terrorists.
Counterterrorism is a tough reality and IT DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE ABSTRACT -IT HAS CONSEQUENCES.

2. UBL and AQ and AQ-affiliates have had and still solicit state-sponsorship on a mostly ad hoc basis.

3. Pragmatically, terrorism is not an existential threat. It is a hodgepodge of bad things superimposed on society by an embittered few in a haphazard manner to shout and pout and get there way no matter the consequences.
The terrorist’s capability verses our resolve and resiliency is an unanswered question. Let’s hope they die off or quit before we do or go broke in the process. While hope is not a plan, it provides purpose to the CT mission.

4. We don’t have all the answers and some of our efforts are futile. Figuring out what works is no easy task.

Nonetheless, the USA remains to be the man in the arena.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

October 2, 2010 @ 5:25 am

John:

Your emphasis on the crucial role of the “man in the arena” is especially important. Thank you for keeping this reality at the forefront of our deliberations.

This particular debate is circling around speculation that the President has authorized lethal action against an individual citizen. We don’t know if this is actually the case. There are also rumors that DOJ will soon file a criminal complaint against al-Awlaki to facilitate capture, extradition, and so on.

It is my perception that the President is ethically justified in authorizing lethal action. Your comment summarizes many of the reasons why. Mr. Obama is clearly a “man in the arena.” Further, the decision to pre-authorize lethal action is mostly designed to protect the specific men and women who will pull the trigger. With his signature the President is saying, I will accept the legal consequences of this action. This acceptance of responsibilty is an important ethical choice, especially given the questionable legality of the choice.

I have argued that — under current laws — the unilateral action of the executive to kill a citizen is almost certainly unconstitutional. Constitutional claims otherwise can be made and argued, but — in the abstract — these claims are likely to lose. Much of our law has grown up around restraining the ability of the executive to take unilateral action. Pre-authorization of killing a citizen — without specific legal authority and, probably, some form of judicial review — does not comport with current constitutional standards.

Unconstitutional and unethical are two different standards, two different categories of judgment. I am prepared to honor the President’s ethical judgment that Mr. al-Awlaki should, if the opportunity arises, be killed. This does not mean I must also see this decision as constitutional. As you so rightly emphasize, being a man in the arena has consequences. Right now practical demands and abstract demands are in opposition. In such a situation I will usually be glad for a President who assumes responsibility for what is practically demanded.

I am also arguing, however, that this conflict between what is ethical and what is constitutional could be resolved by legislative action. The current level of ambiguity could be reduced. Further, I perceive that such explicit resolution — and the process of developing the resolution — would/should help our society recognize that many more of us are already in the arena without even recognizing it. Being in the arena is dangerous enough. Pretending you are a spectator as a gladiator bears down on you increases everyone’s risk, and especially the risk to those trying to protect you.

As far as I know, Teddy Roosevelt introduced the term “man in the arena.” In the same 1910 speech in Paris the former President gives considerable attention to the role of the individual citizen as the man (and now woman) in the arena:

A democratic republic such as ours – an effort to realize its full sense government by, of, and for the people – represents the most gigantic of all possible social experiments, the one fraught with great responsibilities alike for good and evil. The success or republics like yours and like ours means the glory, and our failure of despair, of mankind; and for you and for us the question of the quality of the individual citizen is supreme… With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average women, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional cries which call for heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.

Government secrecy of what and why patronizes — and eventually infantilizes — the citizens. If the citizens have given consent to what and why, I will trust my government as to how, when and where an action is to be taken on our behalf.

If I have not been involved in offering my consent, I may well honor the good intentions of my President in taking action. But because I too am a man in the arena, I am called to hold my servant accountable for going beyond what I have authorized. I am — with you — a citizen, we ought not forsake our responsibilities or there will be terrible consequences.

Comment by Dan O'Connor

October 2, 2010 @ 9:17 am

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”.
Theodore Roosevelt

To me, one of the purposes of this blog is to examine ideas, concepts, and thoughts of others and express reflection in slow motion… to let evolution of process come from the various prose and missives.

Unfortunately, in many situations, the decisions we pontificate on are often ones moving pretty darn fast… revolutionary in fact.

Our luxury is almost assuredly hindsight.

So indeed, not just this President and administration but all of those in the past and those in the future have been and will be “in the arena” and while we may aggree or disaggree we must support them as citizens.

My country right or wrong, but my country.

Comment by John Comiskey

October 2, 2010 @ 10:17 am

Dan,

Thanks.

Having been the man in the arena [mostly as a mid level manager] I am sympathetic to the men and more so now the women in arena who try to use foresight to manage whatever comes their way. The Kings County DA’s office taught me to try to memorialize events as they occur for prosecutorial purposes. While that is difficult in many instances it has shaped my professional conduct and mostly to a good end: i.e. due what your doing now through the eyes of judges and juries. Perhaps that is something akin to “God is watching” me mantra that the Irish Christian Brothers embedded in me.

Comment by Mississippi Kid

October 2, 2010 @ 10:53 am

Maybe I’m missing something. Just found this blog yesterday and sounds like you guys have been going at this awhile. But I read Palin saying that killing Alwaki is both right and wrong, depending on what standard you apply. Reminds me of F.Scott Fitzgerald: “Intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” So, Palin is ready to kill the guy but also admit that, depending on the point-of-view, the action may also be wrong. Sounds aboout right to me. That’s real ambiguity, the kind we encounter in the real world all the time.

Comment by AnotherNewKid

October 2, 2010 @ 1:30 pm

Palin’s argument is fine in the abstract. The practical problem is that his kind citizenship is hard to find. We have a lot more consumers instead of citizens. Comiskey knows that consumers want their needs served at the lowest possible price and with as little hassle as possible. I wish Palin was right, but Comiskey is right. No sense trying to get the law right The spectators don’t want to enter the arena. Take care of the bad guys as simply and quickly as possible, then sell the film and videogame rights. When the consumers can buy something, then there’ll be some interest. It’s not a general citizenry any more, its a mass market.

Comment by Mississippi Kid

October 2, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

If the contest is to find the real realist in this bunch its got to be between History Detective and O’Connor. Both are fatalists. Thats the meaning of the Thomas More piece. He could betray his most fundamental ethic or he could be killed. Not much of a choice. Brutally realistic. But me, I’d rather try to make a middle way. I guess you and Comiskey would say I’m just fooling myslef.

Comment by Arnold Bogis

October 2, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

Mr. Comiskey,

I was struck in particular by one of your statements:
“UBL and AQ and AQ-affiliates have had and still solicit state-sponsorship on a mostly ad hoc basis.”

If you don’t mind the questions:
–What state-sponsorship have they had in the past? Are you referring to something other than the Taliban (often described as more of a symbiotic relationship than traditional state-sponsorship)?
–What exactly do they solicit on an ad hoc basis? Some may interpret Iranian wavering commitment to monitoring activity or preventing communication of known and suspected AQ members within their territory as sponsorship. But I do not, as it lacks an opertional or financial component.

Thanks in advance for your further illumination of this particular subject.

Comment by HISTORY DETECTIVE

October 3, 2010 @ 3:17 am

Man proposes, God disposes. Man is real, God is fatal. Attraction to danger spices up life.

“Wisdom is to be crazy when circumstances warrant it.”
Jean Cocteau

Terrorists have no sense of style and you must live for design. Anything Americans automatically go for is usually wild. Go for the .38 and hold on to your hats kids. If you got a warrant, I guess you’re going to come in. If not you usually come out alive. The rip-off versions will substitute synthetics for lush materials, so if you are going to get ahead get the real McCoy and avoid the Hat Fields.
Money is a defence and a damn good defence at that. Undress in private and get a new pair of shoes. Shoes don’t make feet obsolete. Women today want variety! Walk tall, I catch your fall line. Investment clothes can be mixed and matched. Terrorism is a bad investment.

Comment by HISTORY DETECTIVE

October 3, 2010 @ 3:40 am

Bring Bill Blass and golden gun. The old gun is in secure storage and the kids need BB’s and CO2 to shoot it out at OH K Korral. Use the silencer and turn up the radio. It’s hard to tell who’s more deadly. There will be some horrendous copies. Shield your eyes and never fire at a shield. No you can’t see mine. Obits will be in the mourning Post and trucks are roaring through the early morning. Security is a Go-Go. Need some plastique for bows and arrows. Piece of cake. Fun in the haystacks.

Support your local Sheriff and rally the State Troopers.

Comment by HISTORY DETECTIVE

October 3, 2010 @ 3:54 am

To PA DOC. Turn down thermostats this winter to save on prison heating costs. Bad economy and all. Complaint is an old maid. Using space heater and planning U.S. Space Camp for the kids. Relocate Gitmo thugs to Alaska and feed cold fish.

Comment by HISTORY DETECTIVE

October 3, 2010 @ 4:14 am

Baby breakdown it’s alright. Tom Betty It’s safe and that’s where the money is. Got so many 50′s we need a second safe for the love of Grant. Get 100′s next time honey.

Pingback by Homeland Security Watch » Anwar al-Awlaki said to be dead

September 30, 2011 @ 8:17 am

[...] an interesting coincidence, exactly one year ago today Homeland Security Watch posted: Killing a Fellow Citizen: Four frames on the present reality of Anwar al-Awlaki.  Even while I hope the news of his death is accurate, the issues raised in the post one year ago [...]

Pingback by Homeland Security Watch » AG Holder: “due process takes into account the realities of combat”

March 8, 2012 @ 6:11 am

[...] posts on this issue include: Killing a Fellow Citizen and Persons and Due Process, Terrorism and [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>