I have previously addressed what I consider to be the constitutional issue of killing Anwar Al-Awlaki. So anyone who knows what I have written and what I stand for knows that I believe in a tight reading and application of the U.S. Constitution. But, here we go again, thank you DOJ for ensuring that I continue to view my government with suspicion and disgust.
In as few words as possible, the best way to understand the DOJs determination in the white paper is stated by Rosa Brooks at foreignpolicy.com:
"If you were worried about whether it was okay for the U.S. government to kill an American citizen overseas, you can relax: The Justice Department says such killings are hunky dory, as long as some "informed, high-level official" decides that citizen poses and "imminent threat" and capture would be "unfeasible"." (read the article here)
Kudos to Brooks for then tearing apart, cleanly, and systematically the logic of the papers key claims. Paramount within these claims are that a senior official can make the decision, and that imminent threat may not actually mean something that we know will happen soon, or even ever. Who is a senior official? And, what happened to imminent meaning right now and threat meaning something that will really happen?
Of course, my biggest problem is still that the 4th and 5th amendments to the U.S. Constitution are violated. I could care less about what Pakistan thinks about us striking targets inside Pakistan, but can those targets include U.S. citizens--not without a trial and a finding by a court that this U.S. citizen is guilty of a crime. And even then, execution requires a finding of guilty of a capital offense and that proper procedure be followed in the carrying out of the sentence--is death by drone strike cruel and unusual?
In as few words as possible, the best way to understand the DOJs determination in the white paper is stated by Rosa Brooks at foreignpolicy.com:
"If you were worried about whether it was okay for the U.S. government to kill an American citizen overseas, you can relax: The Justice Department says such killings are hunky dory, as long as some "informed, high-level official" decides that citizen poses and "imminent threat" and capture would be "unfeasible"." (read the article here)
Kudos to Brooks for then tearing apart, cleanly, and systematically the logic of the papers key claims. Paramount within these claims are that a senior official can make the decision, and that imminent threat may not actually mean something that we know will happen soon, or even ever. Who is a senior official? And, what happened to imminent meaning right now and threat meaning something that will really happen?
Of course, my biggest problem is still that the 4th and 5th amendments to the U.S. Constitution are violated. I could care less about what Pakistan thinks about us striking targets inside Pakistan, but can those targets include U.S. citizens--not without a trial and a finding by a court that this U.S. citizen is guilty of a crime. And even then, execution requires a finding of guilty of a capital offense and that proper procedure be followed in the carrying out of the sentence--is death by drone strike cruel and unusual?
No comments:
Post a Comment