Targeted Killings a Basic Power of the Commander in Chief Commentary
Targeted Killings a Basic Power of the Commander in Chief
Edited by:

Jim Hanson [Senior Director, Warrior Legacy Foundation]: “As reported here: A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday dismissed [PDF] a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s ability to conduct “targeted killings” in the case of radical Muslim cleric and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi.

I am not the best person to be commenting on the legal arguments around this judgment. I will however cheer its understanding that it is not the job of the judiciary to look over the shoulder of the President and attempt to micromanage him when he is exercising his authority as Commander in Chief. That is not to say that he is unfettered when operating as such, but that his responsibility to keep us safe makes him the proper one to decide when one of our enemies must be killed.

To be sure, this Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is “constitutionally committed to the political branches” and judicially unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance.

This decision notes correctly that evaluating intelligence regarding terrorist threats is not the job of the judiciary, nor is determining what the proper response to these same threats. Article Two of the US Constitution was specifically designed to make sure that our military forces had one and only one Commander in Chief. Leadership by committee is an oxymoron and nowhere more so than when applied to military and counterterrorism operations. That is why we hold elections every four years; we want to make sure that the person we give that mighty power to is worthy of it.

Awlaqi is a member of al Qaeda and actively recruits terrorists and works to inspire them to kill us. His membership in al Qaeda also means that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), passed overwhelmingly by Congress soon after 9/11, is a specific hunting license.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That is a very broad mandate and obviously includes Awlaqi by his own admission. But what if he is not part of al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11? What if he didn’t think they were radical enough and he formed his own terror cell? The judge’s decision in this case did not seem to rest on the AUMF, but the more basic power of the Commander in Chief. That would seem to say that once the same reasoning is applied, then Awlaqi painted a target on his forehead as soon as he convinced the President he is a viable threat to the US and our citizens. That is a common sense idea that I am happy to see has filtered up to our courts. If we can identify and kill terrorists wherever we find them on the planet, that is a good thing.”

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.