Brayden Carroll

Professor Smith

Criminal Law and Procedure

February 28th

After September 11th, the US has carried out numerous drone strikes on terrorist

countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan. These attacks were meant to kill target

individuals however innocent civilians were killed as well. These attacks have arouse a

controversial argument because of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. This man was accused of

multiple terrorism related activities in which threatened the safety of the United States, however

many people think it was wrong of the United States to assassinate this man because of his

citizenship with the United States. (Cora) Awlaki was killed by the drone, and was obviously not

given a right to a trial prior to his death, which raises the controversial question; was it wrong of

President Obama to deny due process to suspected terrorists whom are United States citizens?

In the United States Bill of Rights, the 5th Amendment states that no person shall be

deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (billofrightsinstitute.org). This

means that regardless of the crime committed, every US citizen has a right to trial. This is also

mentioned in the 6th Amendment where is states In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

enjoy a...trial. (billofrightsinstitute.org). Most people would agree that is it extremely uneasy

knowing that citizens of the United States take part in plots against the country, just as Awlaki

did. What this man has committed is unloyal to the country he belongs too, however, it is a

crime and must be treated the same as any other. This mans citizenship changes my entire
perspective on this issue and here is why: because Awlaki is a citizen of the U.S., he must be

given all the rights that the Bill of Rights state, therefore, one could argue that the acts

committed by the U.S. government were unconstitutional.

In my opinion, President Obamas decision to deny due process of law was not the right

decision. I think this because since this man is a citizen of the United States, the Bill of Rights

applies to him, just as anybody else. Yes, Awlakis acts were high profile crimes and threatened

the safety of the United States, however it is a crime just like any other and should be treated like

one in a formal manner. I think that Obama acted upon fear of the country instead of

constitutional rights.

How the United States government should have handled this was they should have

captured this man, and anyone who may have been involved in his terrorist plot and they should

have brought them to jail, where they would wait for a trial. At the time of the trial, that is when

it would be the judges decision to sentence them to their punishment whether that be the death

row, or life in jail, that is when the appropriate action would be taken. This would also ensure

that the criminals are being watched and are locked up in jail, unable to escape which would help

ease the fear that they may continue their plot. This would also cut off all communication with

other potential terrorists so that the plot would be shut down completely. Dealing with the issue

this way would remove the controversial side of thing, pleading that what was done was

unconstitutional.

In conclusion, every U.S. citizen, regardless the crime, should be given the same rights

that the Bill of Rights provides. President Obamas decision to deny that right to citizens of the

United States is, in my opinion, unconstitutional and there is better alternatives to the situation.
 Works Cited

"Bill of Rights." Bill of Rights Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.

Cora Currier, Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes, Pro Publica (February 5, 2013).