Four legs good two legs bad
Karima Bennoune thinks human rights groups shouldn’t portray Anwar al-Awlaki as a nice liberal guy.
Bennoune pointed out that Awlaki published an article in al-Qaida’s English language magazine, Inspire, in July openly calling for assassinations of several people, including a young woman cartoonist in Seattle and Salman Rushdie. This was at around the time the CCR was offering to represent Awlaki’s father, she said.
Bennoune, who is of Algerian descent, also expressed fears that the CCR and the ACLU were in danger of “sanitising” Awlaki to western audiences.
“Since the inception of the case,” she said, “there has been increased mystification of who Anwar al-Awlaki is in liberal and human rights circles in the United States. This may in part have resulted from the fact that a highly reputable organisation like CCR was willing to represent his interests, and described him only as ‘a Muslim cleric’ or ‘an American citizen’, and repeatedly suggested that the government did not possess evidence against Awlaki.”
Gita Sahgal also thinks this is a problem.
Karima Bennoune’s public criticism of the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU’s case in defence of Anwar al-Awlaki is a welcome stand for a universal vision of human rights that has largely gone missing from western human rights organisations.
Many Asian, African and Middle Eastern groups and organisations who are struggling against both state and non-state violence feel utterly betrayed by the deliberately ignorant and partial stands taken by organisations in the US and Britain which are supposed to represent human rights. Their outrage was ignored or attacked by the left in Britain. The three founders of Amnesty International in Algeria were allegedly expelled from the organisation for raising an internal complaint about Amnesty’s failure, in their view, to criticise atrocities committed by Islamist rebels, as opposed to government repression, as Algerian feminist Marieme Helie Lucas made public for the first time earlier this year.
A familiar and depressing pattern.
The attacking and killing of enemy leaders in a time of war is a legitimate tactic – I think. Anyway it’s been done many times in past wars and it happens virrtually every day in Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan as US weapons drones open rocket fire on taliban and al qaida fighters and leaders. The real question is, ‘is this “war on terror” a war to be fought as any other war?’ I am surprised that Awlaki has not been stripped of his US citizenship though!
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa and Mike Daniels, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Four legs good two legs bad http://dlvr.it/8mfL5 […]
Care to clarify a specific instance of a human rights group portraying Anwar al-Awlaki as “a nice liberal guy”?
Just read what’s on the page, Simon.
Ophelia, I read the entire original article you quote and acould not find something backing up your “nice liberal guy” assertion, hence why I ask. If I missed something please let me know.
I didn’t make a “nice liberal guy” assertion.
This is what you said referring to the article. I did not find anything to back this up, this is all I am saying.
I know what I said, but that’s not an assertion of the kind you’re addressing. I didn’t say what you’re saying I said.
I’ve been following this story for months and have not seen any statements from the CCR or the ACLU (two specific groups that if I understand correctly are legally representing his father in the US) that would incline me to believe they thought Awlaki is a “nice liberal guy”. It is entirely possible that you have seen something I haven’t which is why I asked. I guess it’s up to the readers to make up their minds about who said what.
The first quoted passage indicates what Bennoune takes to be the problem, which is one of omission rather than comission. Awlaki is called a Muslim cleric or an American citizen, and that omits other salient facts about him.
I’m with Simon. Legally representing someone isn’t the same as “sanitizing” them or their relatives. And I don’t think the other points you bring up, or the linked articles bring up, are legally “salient.” People who don’t believe in human rights still have human rights, so this guy’s non-liberal non-niceness has nothing to do with the CCR’s case, or the moral case. If any liberals are getting the idea that anyone the CCR or the ACLU defends is a nice liberal person, that’s the fault of their own lack of understanding of the concept of human rights. But the priority of these organizations is to change the law, not to teach liberals the elementary lesson that sometimes illiberal policies target illiberal people.
But legal representation is not the same thing as advocacy.
But they’re not advocating that this guy should be recognized as a decent man, or anything else involving his personal qualities. They’re advocating that the U.S. government has no right to summarily assassinate him because he is a U.S. citizen.
But then why call him a Muslim cleric?
Because that’s his job description? It’s not a character endorsement to call him that. It’s not a badge of decency or liberalism, nor do most people interpret it as such. If anything it would make the U.S. government’s case seem stronger to many, to describe him as such.
In any case, the only reference to him as a “Muslim cleric” by the CCR that I can find is in the headline and first sentence of this Huffington Post article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/why-we-sued-to-represent_b_668725.html) by Bill Quigley, the CCR’s legal director. The CCR’s most common way of describing him is “U.S. citizen,” and they describe their suit as in protection of “U.S. citizens” as a class, not of this man because of any individual qualities. That emphasis is also evident in the Quigley article.
(See the following links for CCR statements on the case, since the link button isn’t working for me: http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-and-aclu-response-report-government-will-bring-charges-against-anwar-al-aulaqi, http://ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings, http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-and-aclu-receive-license-ofac-pursue-challenge-targeted-killing).
Er, because he is one? I’m not sure what conclusion you are drawing from this fact…
No, no, that’s a valid question. She means why call him that if they’re not trying to present him as a nice guy. Insofar as the ACLU/CCR case is concerned, it shouldn’t matter that he’s a cleric, or anything else. All that matters to their case is that he’s a U.S. citizen who is being targeted for assassination without due process, and there’s a real question as to whether that’s legal under the current framework. The Obama administration cites the authorization to use military force, which was given to Bush after 9/11. They cite international law, too (from Wikipedia):
The ACLU/CCR request for an injunction seems a sensible one: they just want the state to disclose the standards being used to determine which US citizens can be targeted for assassination by their own government:
I see multiple problems
a. Commenters who say that well the US government should not assassinate US citizens implying its ok if the targets are not US citizens
b. The capacity of the US citizens to elect people like Bush/Cheney who can misuse their powers – Thereby needing people to defend people like Awlaki.
c. Organisations who defend people like Awlaki. Surely you can spend your resources on better causes.
Its one thing to say capture and bring this guy for trial and if he gets killed while doing so , so be it – quite another to sanction assassination.
I think the problem arises because most of us feel that only good people should be helped, and nasty people should be left to go to hell in their own way. That’s perfectly human.
However, there are other people who feel that, however nasty the person is or however badly he behaves, no person or organisation has the right to take law into their own hands without a proper trial in a recognised court.
That is perhaps, in an ideal world, the correct position to take were it not for the fact that some people insist on taking the law into their own hands on the one hand and on the other hand insist on proper legal proceedings when other people wish to stop them or punish them from doing so.
Eventually you come to the point where you have to decide whether using a sneaky killer drone is uncivilised (i.e. not observing the letter of the law) or merely a matter of shooting a rabid dog to protect yourself from developing rabies. A very nasty choice
I think Simon’s initial criticism was rather unfair. Ophelia was clearly trying to summarize Karima Bennoune’s objection, not to make one of her own.
Other than that, I’m not sure if I agree with the specific claim that mere representation of al-Awlaki’s case is in anyway an endorsement or “sanitization”.
I’m less familiar with the CCR, but in the case of the ACLU, a passing familiarity with the organization is enough to know that a good deal of the purpose of the organization is to represent people everyone hates (regardless of whether or not that hatred is deserved), and they certainly have not stopped short of representing violent criminals. Although they may distance themselves from their clients’ positions, it’s pretty obvious that they would not very harshly denounce someone they were currently representing (What kind of ridiculous policy would allow that?). I’m not aware of any strongly anti-pedophilia statements released when they were representing NAMBLA (although they did mention in passing their support of gay rights when supporting Westboro; given that that’s one of ACLU’s main positions they could hardly ignore the apparent conflict).
Anyway, it’s quite easy to argue that this is about legal principles (Does the U.S. Constitution allow someone to be effectively sentenced to death in their absence without a jury?) rather than about the details. One could plausibly make a distinction between someone who resists arrest and is killed, or someone killed in the course of battle, versus someone who is killed with no arrest attempt made, off any battlefield (I stop short of deciding whether that distinction is really key here).
As for the description of “Muslim cleric”? Perhaps the problem is that people assume that a Muslim cleric represented by the CCR and ACLU is automatically considered not so bad, not that he was correctly labeled as a religious leader.
That said, obviously there are some problems outside of the mere fact of the case. We have this: “Instead, in language very similar to Begg’s, the CCR has stated that in the absence of any due judicial process against al-Awlaki, there is no evidence against him.” which would seem to be strongly deceptive in that it suggests al-Awlaki has done nothing at all or that charges against him are somehow made up. (I dearly wish that I had the actual quote in context to examine further.)
Also, Cageprisoners has released some rather awful material like this editorial defending their views on al-Awlaki. Obviously an unqualified endorsement of Cageprisoners is extremely troubling.
To summarize, I’d like to see this case as being somewhat like other defenses of horrible people and criminals. I think that al-Awlaki’s awfulness is obfuscated by the rather fuzzy views many liberals take regarding Islam and multiculturalism (or criticism of Islam and xenophobia), and that’s really more of a problem than the legal representation aspect. Also, Cageprisoners bad.
And of course that’s all he is and all there is to him, so the choice to describe him only in that way is entirely neutral and not a disingenuous deployment of the compositional fallacy.
Read the post. It identifies the problem clearly: human rights groups are whitewashing al-Ankawi. This is turning them into apologists for human rights abuses.
The idea of human rights only applies within peaceful civilised societies. Once you introduce the idea of war or enemies, human rights is meaningless. When a group of people are at war with the state or with civilised societies and seek to destroy them, then they’re enemies of the state and enemies of societies.
Making human rights an ideology or some universal ideal is as irrational and unintelligent as any other political ideology.
(Argh-made a couple errors in previous post, please delete/disregard and replace with below)
a) I don’t know why we have to dissect second-hand newspaper reports when the main actors provide ample statements themselves. Here are the two pages for the ACLU and CCR on this matter and provide all of their public statements legal documents (including those submitted by the government) :
http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings
http://www.aclu.org/targetedkillings
The ACLU even has an FAQ on this: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/frequently-asked-questions-about-targeting-killing
b) The fact of the matter is that based on public statements by government officials Al-Awlaki is currently hiding in Yemen and is among others on a secret US government kill-list. CCR and ACLU is representing Al-Awlaki’s father who is in the US. What they are asking for is due process and have repeated on many occasions that if the US Government has evidence against Al-Awlaki of any criminal wrongdoing, it should be presented in a court of law. So far the government has responded that they bear no such responsibility and have claimed the state secrets privilege.
c) It is not the CCR and/or the ACLU’s job to give a character assessment of Al-Awlaki. If the government has evidence of his guilt, it is the government’s job to bring said evidence against Al-Awlaki before a judge. That’s how I understand the US legal system.
d) If a commentator feels that there needs to be more information made available on Al-Awlaki, then perhaps they should be directing this request to the US government agencies who have targeted him, rather than Al-Awlaki’s lawyers. Just a thought.
@Egbert
Nonsense.
So? This is exactly when Human Rights become essential. If society was civilised and peaceful we wouldnt need all the checks.
A number of libertarian groups have also come out against this policy for exactly the same reason. Government secret assassination of (particularly) US citizens is a very dangerous precedent.
As Sean indicates, the two (at least) issues are separate. Awlaki’s legal rights are one issue, and how CCR should label him is another. To call him “a Muslim cleric” tout court is ridiculous.
There was Edgar Killen, the Baptist preacher who was finally convicted in 2005 for his involvement in the murders of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner in Mississippi in 1964. He wasn’t just “a Baptist cleric.”
What can I say, my reading of the Karima Bennoune article that Ophelia cites was that the terms “muslim cleric” and “US citizen” were not descriptive enough (hence the whitewashing charge). Ophelianew appears to be saying that this need not be mentioned at all.
My understanding is that it’s a standard practice to mention someone’s profession in media references-journalists do it all the time, hence why I think it’s pointless to read into it. Furthermore, the term ‘muslim cleric’ has a positive connotation to some and a negative connotation to others (kind of like ‘catholic priest’).All the more reason not to dwell on this IMO.
As far as that being mentioned in the formal complaint itself, I don’t see it there as it’s not relevant to the particular legal case.
The entire point of the lawsuit is that Al-Awlaki deserves the same right to a fair trial that the US government gives all of it’s citizens, including child molesters, rapists, serial murderers, and yes, even Edgar Killen.
Yes but the case should be made without veiling the facts in obscurity.
I agree 100%. All the more reason to support the ACLU/CCR request to have a transparent civilian trial that will be part of the public record. The only party in this case that is known to be withholding information about Al-Awlaki (in fact asserting a legal right to do so) is the US government.
Perhaps we should note at this point that Awlaki is not under US jurisdiction. Any talk of presenting evidence at a trial, unless it is one held in absentia, is rather pointless. It seems to me that the point some folks are trying to make is that Awlaki is an american citizen and therefore should not be subject to assassination. So is assassination appropriate if the target is not a US citizen, and if not why is there no constant outcry concerning its use? Under the circumstances I don’t see the relevance of Awlaki’s citizenship; it’s due process for all or for none. And never mind that AQ, AQII, AQIP, the Taliban, al-shabaaz etc, etc routinely use assassination themselves, considering it a legitimate tactic of war and thus should have no complaint if it is used against them. I rather think they expect it.
Good.
The ACLU and CCR whitewashing Al-Awlaki undermines their defence of human rights.
We need effective opposition to *all* human rights violators.
‘Making human rights an ideology or some universal ideal is as irrational and unintelligent as any other political ideology.’
If that’s the prevailing view of this site – which I doubt – I’ve badly misjudged it.
I thought universal human rights were central to the site’s ‘ideology’, and that the kind of relativism you are proposing was anathema to most of us here.
The clue’s in the name: ‘human rights’, not ‘nice guy rights’.
They are asking for a trial that will be a matter of public record. I think people can judge whether the claim you are repeating makes sense or not given that basic fact.
The fact is that we simply don’t know who else is on the US government list that Al-Awlaki is on-so to say that non-US citizens are being ignored in this case is simply not a valid argument. Furthermore, when you make a legal challenge before a court (at least in the US), you don’t go in to debate a universal principle, you establish standing and argue the merits of a specific case. In this specific case, the ACLU is going before a US court and suing the US government which is asserting it’s rights under US law. In any case, their mission is defend individual liberties in the US Constitution: http://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0
With regards to non-citizens, it takes a quick look at the ACLU’s many cases on torture, spying, drone attacks, etc. to show that they have a pretty broad range of cases: http://www.aclu.org/national-security
You’ll forgive me if I hold the US government to a higher standard than Al-Qaeda with regards to using lethal force.
No, I won’t, actually. Why on earth should al-qaeda be held to a lower standard? The whole point is that a-q doesn’t meet the universal standard. It’s not that the US doesn’t need to meet it too, it’s that a-q doesn’t meet it.
What I don’t understand about this is that al-Awalaki has declared himself a combatant, and has stated his desire to go to war against the West and America in particular.
He’s a self-declared enemy combattant, and the fact he isn’t on a traditional battlefield holding a rifle changes nothing.
Does the term “targeted assination” even apply? Al-Awlaki has declared himself a foot soldier in a war that has him pitting radical Islam against western civilisation.
Were the Gemran soldiers killed during WWII ‘target assasinations’?
Deepak Shetty: the legal case against targeting U.S. citizens is, under U.S. law, much stronger (as I understand it) than for non-citizens. Sad, but true–and that’s the framework the CCR has to work with.
As for the “cleric” issue, I really think that’s making a mountain out of nothing at all. He’s a cleric. We can say he’s a cleric. They’re not making that part of their case–it’s at best a passing mention.
Well, again – if the subject were a Catholic priest who urged his parishioners to murder doctors who provide abortions, would it be normal to refer to him as a Catholic priest full stop? Did anybody ever refer to Edgar Killen as a Baptist preacher full stop? I’m not sure it’s true that someone who urges mass murder just “is” a cleric. It’s true formally but it’s not what people normally understand by the word. (There’s a term of art for that kind of meaning, but I forget what it is, if I ever knew.) You’re right that one shouldn’t make too much of it, but I don’t agree that it’s nothing at all.
Ophelia:
“Implicature,” I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/