Christopher Chambers

Professor Mc-Smith
Case study #1

In an attempt to better protect the United States, between 2008 and 2013 upwards of

3,000 terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen were killed by American Predator drones.

One that has caused controversy was the attack on Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The reason

this was so controversial is because he was also a U.S. citizen. Under the U.S. Constitution, it is

illegal to execute American citizens without due process of law. Awlaki’s death was not

considered to be under due process. In 2013 under President Obama’s administration the

question rose about whether it was justified to assassinate suspected terrorists, U.S. citizen’s or

not. In the end, Obama said it was justified as lawful acts of self-defense. I believe that President

Obama made the right decision in his stance because Al-Awlaki was linked to multiple terrorist

attacks, putting U.S. citizens in danger.

Al-Awlaki participated in criminal conduct by being linked to multiple terrorist attacks.

According to the Constitution, Awlaki was supposed to be given due process. Awlaki was not

arrested and not given due process though, he was attacked by a drone. Constitutional limitations

on the prohibition of criminal conduct relate to the rights of the accused. For example, according

to Criminal Law and Procedure by John M. Scheb and John M. Scheb II, “bills of attainder are

legislative acts imposing punishment without trial upon persons deemed guilty of treason or

felonies. Bills of attainder are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution” (62). When Awlaki was

assassinated, it could be considered that a bill of attainder would be applied for treason, but since

it is prohibited under the Constitution his death has caused controversy. The question that then

comes up is the due process clause, “prohibits the federal government from depriving persons

within its jurisdiction of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (Scheb, 65). The
bill of rights is for the people; therefore, they apply to Awlaki. This provision has also been

applied in the Fourteenth Amendment making them applicable to state and local government

(Scheb, 65). Therefore, it was illegal for Obama to have the drone strikes on terrorists. On top of

this, international law also prohibits killing without due process.

President Obama chose to deny due process on suspected terrorists that are U.S. citizens.

I support Obama on this decision for multiple reasons. In 2010 the Obama administration

completed a memo in which they stated his capture was not feasible. Awlaki was found to be a

terrorist leader, making him dangerous to the U.S. If he was creating imminent danger for the

U.S. and couldn’t be captured, they couldn’t just leave him there to danger us later. A lawsuit

was filed in 2012 against the government for their decision to kill Awlaki. The court threw out

the case in 2014 so only an oral argument was held in 2013. Obama said the decision to kill the

American cleric was an easy one when national security was at stake (Becker, 2012). In the

moment, he had to decide whether one American life was more important than a handful and I

believe he chose right. On top of that, Awlaki was an American citizen but he pledged his life to

Islam and Al-Qaeda. The U.S. Constitution should not apply to someone who doesn’t support the

U.S. The U.S. has been at war with Al-Qaeda for a long time and it won’t stop unless the leaders

are taken out. If Obama hadn’t stopped Awlaki, he most definitely would have endangered more

people. The reason many people believe this was unlawful is because the memo that came out

does not reveal the factual basis for the governments attack (Ackerman, 2014). “It refers instead

to Awlaki as a "leader" who was "continuously planning attacks" against the US, without

providing an evidentiary basis for claims central to the extraordinary circumvention of normal

due process procedures. Nor do the public sections explain why capturing Awlaki was not

feasible, nor why the Justice Department believes it need not have provided Awlaki with judicial
process.” (Ackerman, 2014). This is justifiable to believe it was wrong to do, but it is also

justifiable to say it was right to do. No one knew exactly what Awlaki would do next but maybe

if we didn’t stop him, more Americans would be dead.

If this ever occurs again the US needs to find a better way to handle the situation. They

either need to leave the terrorist alone or somehow detain him. A recommendation I would make

would be to adjust the Constitution. If the president can put in a clause that makes Obama’s

decision that justified targeted assassinations are lawful acts of self-defense than no one can

question the legality of it. Due process applies to every U.S. citizen but I don’t believe Awlaki

should be considered a U.S. citizen. If they are terrorists and U.S. citizens then chances are they

are committing treason, which as I stated earlier bills of attainder should be allowed. In the end,

Obama had to make a decision and I believe he made the right one. Terrorists need to be stopped

before they can do any harm.

Scheb, John M., and John M. Scheb II. Criminal Law and Procedure. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth,
1999. Print.

Ackerman, S. (2014, June 23). US cited controversial law in decision to kill American citizen
by drone. Retrieved February 17, 2017, from
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-
citizen-awlaki

Becker, J. (2012, May 29) Secret “Kill List” Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will.
Retrieved February 17, 2017 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-
leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html