Through the Eyes of a Stranger: On Anwar al-Awlaki

~ Clarissa

Reader el asked me to write about the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki by the US government. I didn’t want to address this topic because I find that the entire discussion surrounding it is too cynical for me to stomach, but I can’t dismiss a regular reader’s request.

Here are the terms that are used to debate this issue on blogs of different political leanings:

An American citizen was killed by the United States because of his speech. And, no, it wasn’t Glenn Beck (although by the standards used here, it could have been).

1. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American because he was born in the United States. He was raised in the United States until he was 7. He was college-educated in the United States, including two graduate degrees. He was an imam at a mosque in the United States. And MSNBC is one of the few places willing to call him an “American” and not just “U.S. born.” He had dual citizenship in the U.S. and Yemen. He has as much right to be called American as Rick Perry.

Do you see anything disturbing in the quoted passage? “American, citizen, American, American, citizenship, American.” And this is just from one short paragraph. Whenever one starts reading any piece on al-Awlaki, one immediately notices that there is more flag-waving than on the 4th of July.

Who cares where anybody was born? Who gives a rat’s ass what citizenship anybody has? The US hands out its citizenships through the means of a lottery. Mail-order brides and religious fanatics of any persuasion from all over the world are handed out these citizenships like frakking candy.

What are we even talking about here? If anybody wants to start a discussion on whether the US should stop sending drones to kill people all over the world, I want to join that conversation. But the moment we start subdividing people into first-class and second-class based on a flapping piece of paper you can win in a lottery, I have no more interest in such a discussion. If it’s wrong to kill supposed terrorists overseas, then it’s wrong to kill all of them. If it’s right to kill them, ditto.

We’ve seen this obsession with when and how one was born with the entire brouhaha over Obama’s birth certificate. Then, we saw the same kind of insanity develop over the birth of Sarah Palin’s most recent child. There is more discussion of where and how people are born in political media than in a psychoanalyst’s office.

After the accident of getting born here or there, to these parents or to those, on this stretch of land or that one, much more important things begin to take place. It is what happens during an individual’s entire life, instead of what happens during the few hours of their birth, that should matter.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

34 thoughts on “Through the Eyes of a Stranger: On Anwar al-Awlaki”

    1. I kind of thought – after all the rhetoric – that neither were the Americans.

      Yes, I think hereditary monarchies had their use historically, but nowadays, that system is a joke.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Indeed, I know only very few Americans who are monarchists of any flavor, fortunately. I was just using mathematical reasoning for humor.

        Unfortunately, we do seem to have a hereditary aristocracy.

        Like

        Reply

  2. There is an important point that I think you have missed – American citizenship carries with it the guarantee of jurisprudence. As bad and as threatening Al-awlaki may have been, as an American Citizen he has the right to the same legal proceedings as any American citizen. It is a dangerous precedent to deny this fundamental right. Even more dangerous to applaud it. As the quote alluded to, this act was no different than Obama deciding, behind closed doors, that Rick Perry is a threat to American and ordering a drone assassination.

    How and if we ought to be waging this war on terrorism is a completely different discussion.

    Like

    Reply

    2. As far as I know, everybody who finds themselves on the territory of the US, irrespective of their citizenship status (except diplomats) are subject to the American justice system. If I, as a non-citizen, commit a crime (which I’m not planning to do, of course), I will be granted habeas corpus, allowed to use a lawyer, argue my case in court, etc. Otherwise, anybody could just commit any kind of crime against non-citizens who live in the US and suffer no repercussions. This, to me, makes sense. If we are all living in this country, we should all be judged in the same way. What this has to do with a piece of paper you can win in a lottery is what I don’t understand.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Non-citizens do not have rights in the US, except as allowed through treaties with the non-citizens country. That the justice system doesn’t discern between citizen/non-citizen in practice (generally) is irrelevant to the fact that they no obligation. Fair treatment of non-citizens is motivated by politics, not jurisprudence.

        If you want to see how non citizens are treated – look at Gitmo.

        Like

        Reply

          2. Two jobs, two kids, professional training ongoing. I barely have time to comment, let alone write a blog. Stick to reading the professionals.

            Like

            Reply

  3. I didn’t want to address this topic …, but I can’t dismiss a regular reader’s request

    Please, feel free to dismiss me whenever you feel like this. I sometimes leave links (if you prefer me not to, tell) because I read something interesting and want to share, and may be give you ideas for new posts.

    If anybody wants to start a discussion on whether the US should stop sending drones to kill people all over the world, I want to join that conversation

    OK, what evidence has to be present to send the drone? Should talking against US (inciting speech) be enough for it, even if the person doesn’t participate himself in preparing terror acts?

    From The Weekly Sift:

    Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.

    What should be the standards? Can US government send drones to every house (in certain countries) and answer only to itself, as president decides, while the accusations are secret?

    We’ve seen this obsession with when and how one was born …

    Every country gives citizens lots of special rights and Doug Muder worries his rights are getting hurt here too:

    I don’t want my life to depend on the President being a nice guy or believing that I’m a nice guy. I want to have rights that are defined by law rather than by the good will of government officials.

    Execution Without Trial

    People worry how government power becomes bigger & bigger because of War on Terror. It’s an important conversation to have. Where should the limit be put?

    Like

    Reply

    1. “I sometimes leave links (if you prefer me not to, tell) because I read something interesting and want to share, and may be give you ideas for new posts.”

      -And I really appreciate that. 🙂

      “OK, what evidence has to be present to send the drone? Should talking against US (inciting speech) be enough for it, even if the person doesn’t participate himself in preparing terror acts?”

      -The US invades entire countries all the time. And here we are, stuck on this one guy whose only difference from all those folks dead in Iraq, etc. is that he had a piece of paper.

      “Can US government send drones to every house (in certain countries) and answer only to itself, as president decides, while the accusations are secret?”

      -Yes, it can. And already does. But nobody cares because all those folks who get killed in the process don’t have the sacred cow of the passport.

      “People worry how government power becomes bigger & bigger because of War on Terror.”

      -Bigger than what? The US has been invading at will since 1898. Why are we suddenly noticing the fact now? Again, because one guy with a passport suffered in the process?

      Like

      Reply

      1. *Why are we suddenly noticing the fact now? Again, because one guy with a passport suffered in the process?*

        No, because some Americans don’t enjoy feeling the results on themselves, f.e. Kittywampus wrote about her experience with airport checks. Doug Muder worries about his rights. When there was a draft, more people imo truly cared about wars abroad, f.e. Vietnam Protest Movement

        When the Vietnam War started only a small percentage of the American population opposed the war…. As the war continued, more and more Americans turned against it… The decision to introduce conscription for the war increased the level of protest, especially amongst young men…. Demonstrations against the war steadily increased in size during the late 1960s. In New York, over a million people took part in one demonstration. The public opinion polls showed that a narrow majority of the people still supported US involvement in Vietnam. However, the polls also indicated that much of this support came from middle class families whose own sons were not at risk.

        President Lyndon B. Johnson knew that if the war continued, he would eventually be forced to start drafting college students. When that happened he would have great difficulty obtaining majority support for the war.

        http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNprotest.htm

        When it’s their skin, people start to care.

        Like

        Reply

  5. What kind of bothers me is that nobody has ever heard about this guy until he was killed.
    I mean slaying the very same monster you conjured is a good way of distinguishing oneself. And the US desperately needs some success to uphold their War on Terror, that has been waged against pretty much everyone including US citizens for over a decade now.

    And if I were an American I would be wary too now. I mean a lot of their freedom was already exchanged for a false sense of security, and all that in what you can only describe as a giant fit of hypocrisy. I am thinking flight security, racial profiling, FBI teaching that the Isam is inherently evil, extended patdowns, gitmo, the PATRIOT Act and so on and so forth. Now, these guys are using drones to bomb US citizens outside the US and that means they are literally one step away from bombing US citizens inside the US.

    Also, relevant: http://www.mattbors.com/archives/187.html

    Like

    Reply

    1. The horrible erosion of civil liberties under the Patriot Act has nothing to do with the violence done by the US to people outside the US for over a century. Do you really care more about the death of this guy because he has a piece of paper? How is his death more tragic than those of thousands of Iraqi children?

      I just don’t get it.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Erm, yeah, the theme is a little rough around the edges. Could you try opening a post ? Right now only an excerpt and no comments are shown on the overview.

        Like

        Reply

            2. And I just left a comment! I love being the first commenter on a blog.

              I remember when I got my very first comment on my blog (from V. it was) I was so scared that I dropped my laptop and sat on the mouse when I got up to pick up the laptop. 🙂

              Like

              Reply

              1. That tormented me. I put it only two days ago and mailed a couple of friends to ceck it out and I have been waiting for this for two days straight.

                Everytime my phone made the mail sound, I snatched it up and went “goddammit” every single time it was something else than a comment waiting for approval.

                Like

              3. That is probably just the server. My host has been uncharacteristically laggy and slow. I hope that is just because the domain is new and has not being properly probagated through the DNS servers.

                Like

  6. I don’t think that this is born out of sympathy for otehrs. It is less that I care about others and more that I care about me.

    If I were an American and the US govt would attack Americans with drones, they might attack me! And it does not take much to raise suspicion, you know. You might be the cousin of the uncle of the #99 on the FBI hitlist or maybe you just read the same books as Timothy McVeigh.

    Like

    Reply

  7. Regarding The Morality of Drone Attacks on Suspected Terrorists:

    The founders of the United States decided that certain rights are given to men from God…not the state. However, we were attacked, and continue to be targeted by a group of people who do not afford those rights to anyone that will not submit to their ideology. Freedom-loving people everywhere must, to use a much-expressed term, fight fire with fire. When certain people are willing and determined to destroy the peace and freedom of an entire nation, and even the entire world, to accomplish their twisted and selfish ends, free men must do WHATEVER is required to protect the innocent (or, at least, the non-combatant) public.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Nobody disagrees. The problem is, who decides which members of the public are innocent and non-combatant and which aren’t? And on the basis of what this decision is made. If you believe the president of the US can never make a mistake, then you don’t have to worry, of course. 🙂

      Like

      Reply

    1. No, let’s not. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest documents humanity has ever produced. This is why we have been discussing the anti-constitutional infringements on civil liberties by the Patriot Act.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment