Courts must try all American citizens who commit crimes — with the exception of justifiable homicide by police — before being put to death.

But this is no longer so clear. Several weeks ago, the United States killed Samir Kahn and Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen. Both are U.S. citizens. Awlaki is claimed to have inspired terrorists, including Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day ‘underwear bomber.’ Kahn produced a magazine for al-Qaida.

President Barack Obama called the death of al-Awlaki ‘a major blow to al-Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate.’ While the death may have strategic significance, the government failed to give Awlaki a fair trial. Instead, constitutional rights were waived in the name of security. The killing raises questions about how much power the executive has to issue capital punishment against its own civilians.

Many have voiced their support for Obama’s decisions. Some have tried to selectively interpret the Constitution in an attempt to prove that the killing was legal. Others have argued that because al-Awlaki was acting against the United States he had effectively relinquished his citizenship. Another argument is that a trial would have been impractical. Al-Awlaki had evaded authorities in the past and escaped capture before.

A secret memo from the government outlined the case of potentially killing al-Awlaki. The order to kill him, according to The New York Times, ‘did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.’ The document claims al-Awlaki was part of a war between al-Qaeda and the United States and that he posed a ‘significant threat’ to Americans. His threat lay in his inspirational role to terrorists, not anything tangible. There was no evidence to suggest that he was directly responsible for an imminent attack. In other words, his killing could not be classified under justifiable homicide police use in immediate self-defense or defense of victims.

These arguments try to dodge the standards established in the Constitution. It is a right of all U.S. citizens to be tried in court, regardless of suspected terrorist affiliations. The nature of our enemies does not excuse the killing. Indeed, the essence of what al-Awlaki is accused of is inspiring others, not directly carrying out an attack. Without any court ruling, the executive-led military ordered to kill him.

Ironically, al-Qaeda questioned the government’s hypocrisy. SITE Intelligence Goup translated a violent-Islamist website, on which a post read, ‘Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!’ Our enemies are even pointing out the inconsistencies in the United States’approach to dealing with suspected terrorists.

In a statement, Samir Kahn’s family said Kahn was a ‘law-abiding citizen of the United States’ and ‘was never implicated of any crime.’

Granting a suspected terrorist the rights to a fair trial is naturally uncomfortable. But the executive cannot selectively apply rights. By definition, every citizen is entitled to them. Even traitors are allowed a trial.

The government may claim that this decision was in the best interest of the nation. But upholding the standards for trying those accused of committing crimes should be the executive’s priority. By making exceptions to our laws, there is a tremendous possibility for the government to abuse its power in the future.

Harmen Rockler is a junior political science and newspaper journalism major. His column appears every Monday. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on October 15, 2011 at 12:00 pm