U.S. District Judge John Bates Rejects Lawsuit to Block Assassination of US-born Muslim Cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki

U.S. District Judge John Bates today rejected a lawsuit from going forward, in which a father is trying to sue to block the US from ordering the assassination of his son, Anwar al-Awlaki, without due process. Not only is the father of Anwar al-Awlaki hoping to protect his son but also to block the American president's ability to target another American citizen as an enemy combatant without first being tried and found guilty.

According to a report from our friends at msnbc, US District Justice John Bates rejected the case, but still had questions of his own, expressed in an 83-page opinion. Among those questions was whether the president or his advisers can order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without "any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization." So, while he seems to understand the problem himself, Bates still sides with the president's desire to over-step his authority.

What is U.S. District Judge John Bates scared of; that the case may be heard? Or, that the father of al-Awlaki might have a valid point?
While in the heat of emotions so easy to raise on as painful a topic as fighting global terrorism by militant Muslim extremists, we all need to realize exactly what sort of precedent is being set here. Nobody except perhaps the most deranged or mentally unstable would agree that the actions of Anwar al-Awlaki are right at all. To engage in militant operations against the United States and its people is obviously wrong, especially for an American-born citizen. It's obviously disturbing that this young man can be born here, grow up enjoying all of the privileges of living here, and then turn in violent opposition to those whom he once called neighbors and friends. But are we setting ourselves up for the proverbial slippery slope? Even a terrorist like Anwar al-Awlaki deserves his protections afforded within our founding documents.

You might argue that Anwar al-Awlaki surrendered his citizenship when he settled in Yemen, and you may even be very correct. But isn' it our experience that government leaders in times past have taken small points and concessions we agree upon, which later evolve into outright abuses of all of us? Case in point: temporary taxes, free speech restrictions, and the US PATRIOT Act, to name three. Down the road, this will grow from this one exception, into other broader "exceptions." They always do. What starts now as a seed planted by US District Justice John Bates, will grow into a forest of abuses in the future. I'm not defending Anwar al-Awlaki as a terrorist. I'm saying we shouldn't consider this, as a country.

Today, Anwar al-Awlaki. Tomorrow, your grandchildren? What has U.S. District Justice John Bates done?
Even if you agree, in light of the war on terror, that an American president can target another American for assassination, what about down the road? Even if you believe the current administration to be incapable of any wrong whatsoever, who is the next president? Who's after that one? How about a mere five presidential terms down the road? Twenty years from now, could we be setting up our own grandchildren to be targeted for death, for mere political dissidence? It seems anytime we give those in power an inch, they take a mile. U.S. District Judge John Bates is wrong for rejecting this case, not as a matter of opinion alone. We Americans do not bequeath our government to our posterity. We borrow it from them.

Source:

Msnbc "US judge rejects targeted-killing case of cleric" December 7th, 2010