Ron Paul and Glenn Greenwald and Gary Johnson are unified in opposition to the US government sanctioned killing of American Citizen al-Awlaki.
The punishment for treason is written into the US Constitution, and that punishment is death. Because of this, it's perfectly legal for the US government to kill al-Awlaki. It's a matter of whether or not you believe the government should have killed al-Awlaki. What makes this situation politically interesting is that you can see that on some level there is a political unification between the anarchist left and anarchist right. Glen Greenwald has taken positions in the past which most would consider to be of the anarchist left, and Ron Paul is known for being associated with the Tea Party.
The psychological alignment between these three different individuals and the factions they represent is the fundamental distrust in government. The far left and far right distrust the government and are uncomfortable with the idea that the government can have the authority to make the decision to take a human life when that human is an American citizen. The US Constitution clearly says that the duty of members who swear their oath is to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. According to the information we have al-Awlaki was clearly an enemy of the United States, he was however an American citizen and because of this and the high levels of distrust of government between the libertarian left and libertarian right, there is a mixed reaction.
If we are to accept the position that the government is not to be trusted we would have to consider:
- Can we trust the media to accurately report on al-Awlaki? (Do we really know for a fact he was guilty of treason?)
- Can we trust the word of the government or government officials with regard to terrorism?
In the case of this executive decision we are supposed to take the government at it's word. For individuals who do take the government at it's word there are still some potential questions such as:
- What are the standard guidelines or what is the policy for when the green light is given to assassinate a US citizen?
- Did al-Awlaki meet this standard or guideline policy?
There are probably many more questions that supporters and the opposition can ask with regard to the assassination of US citizens. It's understandable that this sort of assassination would make Americans citizens very uncomfortable because the guidelines for who is and who isn't committing treason isn't firmly set in stone.
While the Constitution defines what treason is, it does not determine how it's enforced. Should treason be punished by death and under what circumstances is this necessary? Could al-Awlaki have been captured rather than put to death? Should there have been a public trial so that we actually know what he did which qualified him to be put to death?
Interestingly enough Mitt Romney and Rick Perry both came out in favor of the assassination of al-Awlaki. This clearly allows them to distinguish themselves as the establishment candidates.
Comments