An act of war

To hear some people tell it, the United States hovers on the brink of tyranny. President Barack Obama has seized dictatorial power to murder any American citizen he secretly deems a terrorist. Attorney General Eric Holder's craven rationalization...

To hear some people tell it, the United States hovers on the brink of tyranny. President Barack Obama has seized dictatorial power to murder any American citizen he secretly deems a terrorist. Attorney General Eric Holder's craven rationalization of the so-called "CIA assassination" of U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in the wilds of Yemen last September struck some as the veritable death-knell of democracy.

"The president and his underlings," writes one fiery critic, "are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he's accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations."

Sounds grave, doesn't it? No less penetrating a critic than Esquire's Charles Pierce characterized Holder's March 5 speech at Northwestern University's School of Law as "a monumental pile of crap that should embarrass every Democrat who ever said an unkind word about John Yoo."

Yoo, of course, is the Bush administration lawyer who helped write memos rationalizing that anything short of "organ failure or death" wasn't torture.

Then why are so many Americans, myself included, so blase about it? Partly because we've all been raised on spy thrillers like the Jason Bourne series, in which picturesque world capitals teem with rogue CIA agents scheming to bump off Matt Damon.


But more importantly because most feel that, American citizen or not, if you've run off to join a band of lunatics at war with the United States, then to hell with you.

Anwar al-Awlaki called the play; he basically got what he asked for. John Yoo has nothing to do with it.

Terrorism suspects can be arrested in Detroit or Miami, read their rights, and brought to trial. Holder made a big point of that, taking credit for the life sentence administered to failed "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Not so, however, in the Pakistani tribal areas or the mountainous wastes of Yemen where al-Qaida plotters hide -- places where governments barely control major road, and then only by day.

At Northwestern, Holder enumerated circumstances under which the president, as commander-in-chief, can legally use "lethal force" against an al-Qaida operative planning terrorist attacks.

"First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."

He added that "the Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning -- when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear."

In short, it's not a legal proceeding; it's an act of war.


In a stinging editorial, The New York Times declared Holder's reasoning "deeply inadequate." Specifically because, the newspaper argued, the attorney general "gave no inkling what the evidence was in the Awlaki case ... Mr. Awlaki made tapes for Islamist websites that justified armed attacks on the United States by Muslims. But was he just spouting off, or actively plotting or supporting attacks?"

Actually, Holder gave far more than an inkling. Don't Times editors feel a responsibility to read the attorney general's speeches before condemning them?

According to the Justice Department transcript, Holder said Abdulmutallab confessed in detail to FBI agents "how he became inspired to carry out an act of jihad, and how he traveled to Yemen and made contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and a leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Abdulmutallab also detailed the training he received, as well as Awlaki's specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the United States before detonating his bomb."

He confessed these things freely, without being tortured.

So to hell with the late Anwar al-Awlaki. Also with Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, a Saudi bomb-maker also reported blown to smithereens by the same drone-launched CIA Hellfire missile. He built Abdulmutallab's infamous dud bomb, among others. Also sent to glory was Samir Khan, an American citizen of Pakistani origin who edited articles like "Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom."

No, we don't kill people in the USA for blogging about jihad. But don't ride

shotgun with the Dalton gang if you don't want trouble.

As for secrecy, my goodness. U.S. and Yemeni agents had pursued al-Awlaki ever since Abdulmutallab dropped the dime on him in 2009. The manhunt couldn't have been better publicized had Donald Trump led the posse. He knew he was wanted; everybody knew why. If al-Awlaki wanted a jury trial, there was never a time he couldn't have surrendered.


Are there troubling precedents? Sure, we can all imagine a President Santorum raining Hellfire missiles on proponents of the Albigensian heresy.

But that's make-believe. Terrorist bombs are real.

Arkansas Times columnist Lyons is a National Magazine Award winner.

What To Read Next
Get Local