Home / General / It’s Called “Summary Execution.”

It’s Called “Summary Execution.”


Clark Hoyt writes about “semantic minefields” journalists walk through in reporting “objectively” on “contested concepts”:

Stuart Gardiner of San Francisco was incensed last month after The Times reported that the administration had authorized the “targeted killing” of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who it believed was plotting attacks on the United States. Gardiner said the paper had resorted to “a euphemism for assassination,” reducing the decision to kill a person without due process to a term implying “something almost sanitary about the act, bureaucratic and bloodless.”

Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, said he did not regard “targeted killing” as a euphemism like those routinely used by governments “to obfuscate and conceal the true meaning.” You might wonder about those “proximity talks” sponsored by the United States in the Middle East, but there is no doubt what targeted killing means. I don’t think it is euphemistic, either, though it does, as Gardiner argues, sound bureaucratic. Under the circumstances, I could not think of a better term.

Well, I can think of a better term than either of these: “summary execution.” After all, Anwar al-Awlaki is a US citizen allegedly engaged in inciting crimes against his fellow citizens and his government. Like any other US citizen, he is entitled to due process and a trial before the government could even consider whether he deserves the death penalty. When governments kill individuals outside such a judicial process, the terms for this are “summary execution” or “extrajudicial execution.” This is contrary to international human rights standards; international law makes no exception for states to derogate from such rules due to public emergency or internal unrest. When the US government targets its own citizens outside a judicial process it is also a violation of the US Constitution.

I think civil liberties advocates and the press have ceded too much to the US government by accepting the term “targeted killings” to describe the type of summary justice the administration now asserts the right to carry out. But as Hoyt observes, “assassination” isn’t the right term either, if only because it is so imprecisely defined. Instead, let’s ask ourselves whether or not we can accept that our government has, in any context, the right to summarily execute its citizens outside of a judicial process.

You can sign up for 70-646 training program to pass your MB7-843 exams. We also offer best quality self study resources for 70-502 & 70-640, have you ever heard about 650-195; they are stunning in IT world.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Pingback: How About Some Coverage of the Outrage? For That Matter, How About A Little Outrage? : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Stag Party Palin

    How about “lynching”?

  • When it’s the act of a country we oppose, it’s assassination by death squad. When it’s not, it’s a “targeted killing”.

  • Pingback: Daily Links for May 15th through May 16th | Akkam's Razor()

  • And you’re surprised of this “targeted killing” action because?? Our “watchdogs” in the MSM have been numb to conservatives whiting out parts of the Constitution, and the Dems are too afraid of being labeled as weak to oppose it. Same stuff, different year.

  • Pingback: Daily Links for May 16th through May 17th | Akkam's Razor()

  • Anderson

    I agree re: targeting US citizens for assassination, but I have some questions, if anyone’s answering questions for free on the internet these days:

    If we’re targeting a meeting which we believe Osama bin Laden will attend, and our intel shows that al-Awlaki is likely to be there, I don’t think we have to cancel the attack because we might kill an American citizen. What seems to me prohibited is if we target the meeting because al-Awlaki is there.

    Even then, however, what are the odds that al-Awlaki is not hanging on a regular basis with non-citizen terrorists, who could be “targeted” while al-Awlaki is “collateral damage”?

    So, is the only illegal scenario one where we try to kill al-Awlaki when he’s alone, or only in the company of non-terrorists (say, undercover on a bus)? Assuming of course that CIA isn’t stupid or arrogant enough to include “killing al-Awlaki” as a goal of one of the example attacks (which is a large assumption).

  • TheDuke

    The man has a right to trial. However, if he is found guilty of plotting against his own country he will be convicted of treason and executed by firing squad or hanged (Ideally in Times Square).

  • Pingback: Was “Justice” Served? : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

It is main inner container footer text