Glenn Greenwald makes a very good point about recent revelations that the President is claiming the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens that the President labels “terrorists.”
But even if you’re someone who does want the President to have the power to order American citizens killed without a trial by decreeing that they are Terrorists (and it’s worth remembering that if you advocate that power, it’s going to be vested in all Presidents, not just the ones who are as Nice, Good, Kind-Hearted and Trustworthy as Barack Obama), shouldn’t there at least be some judicial approval required? Do we really want the President to be able to make this decision unilaterally and without outside checks? Remember when many Democrats were horrified (or at least when they purported to be) at the idea that Bush was merely eavesdropping on American citizens without judicial approval? Shouldn’t we be at least as concerned about the President’s being able to assassinate Americans without judicial oversight? That seems much more Draconian to me.
It would be perverse in the extreme, but wouldn’t it be preferable to at least require the President to demonstrate to a court that probable cause exists to warrant the assassination of an American citizen before the President should be allowed to order it? That would basically mean that courts would issue “assassination warrants” or “murder warrants” — a repugnant idea given that they’re tantamount to imposing the death sentence without a trial — but isn’t that minimal safeguard preferable to allowing the President unchecked authority to do it on his own, the very power he has now claimed for himself? And if the Fifth Amendment’s explicit guarantee — that one shall not be deprived of life without due process — does not prohibit the U.S. Government from assassinating you without any process, what exactly does it prohibit?
Well, since you put it that way, maybe Presidential assassination of U.S. citizens by fiat isn’t such a good idea.
Via Spencer
Related posts:
Didn’t this already take place to an American citizen in Yemen? I can’t remember whether it was a GWB or WJC operation, but it was unclear to me how it didn’t seem to be as big a deal to the press than to me (yes, I’m familiar with this feeling). Granted, the person in question was, I believe, born in the US, but had spent little time here, and likely had few connections to the US, but the point was that there was not even any specific allegations against him (that I remember), just an item in the paper that he and some companions had been killed by a UAV launched missile.
It was under Bush, and it was in 2002. He was in a car with an al-Qaeda big, and was “collateral” damage.
I’m not sure if this changes things materially but:
1. He was not the target (although intel put him in the car at the time, and thus in lethal harm’s way)
2. The al-Qaeda Op being targeted was a high ranking member
3. It was 2002 and there was a lot more leeway given
Still, in terms of establishing a legal principle, that case was problematic.