For those of you joining us late, Andrew Sullivan - who famously recanted his early support of Bush's war crime in Iraq to become a sharp critic of that administration - rediscovered his love of militarism and unbridled executive power once a Democrat was in the White House.
Responding to this criticism of Obama's intention to execute an American citizen without trial, Sully lamely wrote:
But a single American al Qaeda terrorist in a foreign country actively waging war against us seems to me to be a pretty isolated example.
Which led Glenn Greenwald to correct:
Awlaki is most certainly not a singular case. Obama's "hit list" has at least four Americans on it; Awlaki is the only one whose identity we know. From The Washington Post's Dana Priest in January: "After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad . . . . The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. . . . . As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added."
Then he asked a number of questions, including:
... could Andrew please explain how he knows that Awlaki is an "al Qaeda terrorist"? Being an "al Qaeda terrorist" is a crime with which many people have been charged and convicted. But Awlaki never has been. Are the untested, leaked accusations from government officials really enough for Andrew to conclude that an American citizen is a "terrorist" and, accordingly, support the imposition of the death penalty? Does Andrew not need or want to see any actual evidence -- let alone have that evidence subjected to due process and checks and balances -- before simply assuming and asserting that an accusation like that is true? Does the lengthy record of error and/or abuse under both Bush and Obama -- whereby countless people have been falsely accused of being Terrorists -- not preclude a rational person from vesting blind faith in unchecked government accusations of this sort?
Sullivan's eventual reply was priceless:
There is much public information about Awlaki, and I urge readers to go to Wiki and examine the public record and sources in detail to make their own minds up.
Greenwald comments:
This is what we're reduced to in America: trial by Wikipedia. Apparently, as long as there are enough links on your Wikipedia page to other accused Terrorists, then the President can wave his imperial wand and impose the death penalty on you. Aside from the fact that most of what is on "Wiki" comes from unproven government accusations, and aside from the fact that it's almost all rank guilt by association (Andrew: "Witnesses report he was a spiritual adviser to and met with two 9/11 mass-murderers, Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Almihdhar"), this claim raises the painfully obvious question: if the evidence is so clear and overwhelming that Awlaki is a Terrorist who deserves the death penalty, then why are Obama -- and his supporters -- so afraid to indict him and prove these claims in court?
Daniel Larison took note of Sully's flimsy rationales and wrote:
The trouble for supporters of this outrageous power-grab is that the word assassination deservedly has strong negative associations. Once they start saying, "Yes, we believe the President has the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens under certain circumstances," they start to sound rather callous and seem to show serious disregard for the rule of law. ... If supporters of this outrageous power-grab are uneasy about calling it by its proper name, perhaps they should reconsider whether they actually want to support it.
Well, it turns out some of us are better equipped to handle being exposed as a hypocrite than others:
None of these words quite works with the very difficult case we are discussing and, to be quite frank, Daniel's attempt to equate my wrestling with this dilemma with the Orwellianisms I have done all I can to expose over the last several years is deeply, deeply offensive and unfair. I am genuinely trying to figure this out and deserve better than this.
All together now:
AWWWWWWW...
Here's a suggestion, Mr. Sullivan. Until you "figure this out", why not shut up about it?