Kelly Ann is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Policy & Research and an alumna of Seton Hall University School of Law. She holds a degree in Political Science from Barnard College of Columbia University, where she was an Athena Scholar in the Athena Center for Leadership Studies. In addition to serving as the Social Media and Outreach Coordinator for the Center for Policy & Research and as a member of the editorial staff of TransparentPolicy.org, Kelly Ann works as an attorney in NYC.
It is no great secret that both the legality and the morality of targeted killing has been a hot topic in recent months, Van Buren argues that the practice is at odds with the values our country is based on, as the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen denies him the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Essentially, Van Buren’s point is that we are in a post-Constitutional America, and have strayed dramatically from the values of our Founding Fathers.
As someone who tends to agree with the loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, I side with Van Buren on this. Broadly, I believe that a document written over 200 years ago was never intended to be followed to the letter. Try as they might, our Founding Fathers had no way of predicting what our country would look like and the problems we would face in 2014. What Van Buren is saying, however, is that we have strayed too far from the values our country was built upon. While one would be hard-pressed to find the phrase “targeted killing” or “drone strikes” anywhere within the four corners of the Constitution, we still need to abide by the guiding principles outlined in the document. We are allegedly a country that values freedom, liberty, and due process. If we kill our own citizens in drone strikes, is that truly constitutional?
Last week, the Department of Defense announced the charges against detainee Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al Darbi, who will be charged by a military commission for aiding and abetting conduct that resulted in the suicide bombing of the civilian oil tanker M/V LIMBURG near al Mukallah, Yemen, on October 6, 2002. This is the first time that al Darbi, who has been held as a detainee at GTMO for nearly eleven years, has been charged since his arrival at the detention center. According to his charge sheet, al Darbi is accused of attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, hazarding a vessel, terrorism, attempted hazarding a vessel, and attempted terrorism.
Be sure to follow TransparentPolicy for more info on al Darbi’s upcoming trial as it becomes available.
As I discussed at length last week, high-value detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”) recently drafted a manifesto, which was turned over to GTMO officials in October and declassified earlier this month by Judge Pohl. It is my personal opinion, however, that this “manifesto” should not have been released at all, in any form. Continue reading →
High-value Guantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”) has released a 36-page ‘nonviolence’ manifesto, filled with deeply extremist religious ramblings and advocating that Muslims should avoid using violence to spread Islam. What KSM fails to realize however, is that, while what he likely means is avoiding force, his hate-filled, extremist rant is nonetheless promoting violence, hate, and intolerance. Continue reading →
Earlier this morning, I posted briefly on the Benghazi report issued yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee (the report itself was approved about a month ago, but was only declassified yesterday). Several news outlets, including The New York Times, have pointed out that the report is “broadly consistent with the findings of previous inquiries into the attack on Sept. 11, 2012.” Continue reading →
A report analyzing the September 2012 Benghazi attack was released yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The document ultimately concludes that the attack was preventable, and argues that the State Department failed to boost security in response to intelligence warnings leading up to the attack. Continue reading →