In an interview in 2007 Senator Obama (D-IL) said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation… I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.” In 2013 Americans are facing a president with a different mindset.
A recently leaked White Paper is providing insight into the legal justifications for the Obama administration’s “targeted killing” program. The paper asserts that “high-level” government officials can “…use lethal force in a foreign country…against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force…actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.” This legal framework also explains how lethal force can be used even if the “high-level” government officials do not have “…clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
In September 2011 the administration used drone strikes to kill alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Al-Awlaki’s 16-year old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was also killed by a drone strike. All three were U.S. citizens and none of them had been indicted by the U.S. government for any crimes. According to “…the drone program now is run out of the White House, where (John) Brennan, the president’s most trusted counter-terror adviser, helps Obama pick the targets.”
The rational behind the administration’s “assassination by drone” program sounds eerily reminiscent to former V.P. Dick Cheney’s “one-percent doctrine”. Cheney believed the so-called “war on terror” empowered the Bush administration to invade sovereign countries and violate American’s civil liberties without the need for evidence or extensive analysis. The facts did not matter. According to Cheney, “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It’s not about our analysis … It’s about our response.”
The Obama administrations rational for targeted killings of American citizens contradict some of the basic framework of American democracy. Due process, habeas corpus, checks and balances, and bills of attainder are civil liberty protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
Due process is such an important protection that it is referenced in the Fifth and “Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution” Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government. For the President or other “high-level” government officials to act as judge, jury, and executioner irrespective of “…clear evidence…” of any immediate wrongdoing is the clearest example of arbitrarily denying life and liberty that one can imagine.
Habeas corpus requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge in order to dermine if an individual’s detention is warranted. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Understanding the issues is assassinations not arrest but theoretically, by summarily executing American citizens before they can even be detained is a contradiction of the highest order.
The concept of checks and balances is an important part of the Constitution. Each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful. Under no circumstance should members of the executive branch be allowed to condemn American citizens to death, even in times of “war” without the review of an impartial judge. This also violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, “No Bill of Attainder … shall be passed.” A Bill of Attainder is an act of a legislature or executive declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.
The paper also concludes that the use of drone strikes for targeted killings would not be justified if it violated the fundamental law-of-war principles “…if anticipated civilian causalities (collateral damage) would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.” The administration has presented and defended drone strikes as an “antiseptic” use of technology. CIA nominee, John Brennan defended drone strikes as a more humane form of warfare. He said that “extraordinary care” is taken to ensure they conform to the “law of war principles” but stopped short of saying they are in compliance.
According to the Center for Research on Globalization, “At the end of January 2013, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism was able to identify by name 213 people killed by drones in Pakistan who were reported to be middle-or senior-ranking militants. A further 331 civilians have also now been named, 87 of them children. But this is a small proportion of the minimum 2,629 people who appear to have so far died in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan. The Bureau’s work suggests 475 of them were likely to have been civilians.” The administration has championed the use of drones as making Americans safer by killing terrorists. Killing innocent people in foreign countries creates more terrorists.
President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) containing sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provisions and signed into law a four-year extension of post-Sept. 11 powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists. The rational behind the Obama administrations approach to civil liberties and warfare sounds eerily like a Dick Cheney moment.
Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “Inside the Issues With Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com. www.twitter.com/drwleon
Thanks for publishing this article. The existence of the Obama administration’s so-called kill list and its dramatic increase in the use of drones proves that most Progressives, Democrats and Liberals are as prone to selective outrage and hypocrisy as their political opponents on the Right.
Instead of calling out the Obama administration’s unconstitutional targeting of American citizens for murder and seeking accountability for its continued assassination of innocent civilians and American citizens, many supporters have instead defended the administration’s distortion of core democratic principles and processes.
I am so distressed after reading this article, having tried to shut out of my head previous information heard about Obama and his drone strike philosophy. Now I’m concerned that suppression of this kind of information will come about in the near future.
What can we do to ensure Americans will have options open to freedom of speech if the government chooses this road to killing without legal consequences.