creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum
27 Aug 2014
The Literal War on Drugs: The Promiscuous Use of SWAT Teams Is a Bigger Problem Than Armored Vehicles on Our Streets

Contrary to what you may have heard, the armored vehicles that appeared on the streets of Ferguson, Mo., … Read More.

20 Aug 2014
Must Conservatives Be Cop Lovers? Rand Paul Challenges Fellow Republicans to Rethink Their Reflexive Support of Law Enforcement

Running for the U.S. Senate in 2010, Rand Paul became known as that crazy right-winger who expressed … Read More.

13 Aug 2014
Can a Gun Owner Get Justice in New Jersey?

Shaneen Allen faces three and a half years in prison because she made an honest mistake, followed by a … Read More.

Due Process Delivered by Drones

Comment

When President Obama approves a drone strike against someone he identifies as a terrorist, John Brennan explained at his confirmation hearing last week, the missile fired from that unmanned aircraft is delivering prevention, not punishment.

"We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there's no other alternative," said Brennan, the counterterrorism adviser Obama has picked to run the CIA.

A Justice Department white paper leaked a few days before Brennan's hearing likewise describes death by drone as an "act of national self-defense," part of an "armed conflict" with al-Qaida and its allies. Yet the white paper also speaks of due process for American citizens condemned to death by the president, a requirement it says can be met through secret discussions within the executive branch. This contradiction at the heart of Obama's "targeted killing" policy, combining the rules of the battlefield with the rules of the courtroom, makes a muddle of both.

Last month, in a decision that upheld the president's right to keep the memos summarized in the DOJ white paper under wraps, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon noted that "the concept of due process of law," guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, "has never been understood to apply to combatants on the battlefield actively engaged in armed combat against the United States." That is how the Obama administration describes members of al-Qaida and allied groups: Regardless of nationality, they are enemy combatants who legally can be killed at will, wherever they happen to be.

Yet in a speech last March, Attorney General Eric Holder argued not that the Due Process Clause is irrelevant in this context but that President Obama's kill orders comply with it.

"The Constitution's guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential," Holder said, but "due process and judicial process are not one and the same." Similarly, in an interview with CNN last September, Obama claimed the procedures for identifying people subject to summary execution by drone, though confined to the executive branch, are "extensive" enough to comply with "our traditions of rule of law and due process."

By saying that due process applies to drone strikes on suspected terrorists in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, the administration implicitly concedes that such operations are fundamentally different from shooting an enemy soldier during a battle.

In the latter case, both the identity of the enemy and the threat he poses are clear, and so is the argument for self-defense. When it comes to people marked for death by the president, however, all of these issues may be matters of dispute.

During Brennan's confirmation hearing, Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, was at pains to portray Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the three Americans killed by drones so far, as "a senior operational leader" of al-Qaida who posed "an imminent threat" — the sort of target discussed in the DOJ white paper. Feinstein herself had to testify on these points because neither Brennan nor any other administration official will discuss the evidence against people targeted by drones.

The lack of transparency is especially troubling because the administration's definition of "imminent threat" does not hinge on plans for a specific attack. Furthermore, the white paper explicitly leaves open the possibility that the criteria it describes, while sufficient to justify a presidential death warrant, may not be necessary, and it acknowledges no geographic limit on Obama's license to kill. Brennan conspicuously dodged the question of whether the president can order hits on U.S. soil.

Given this alarming combination of deadliness and silence, it is not hard to see why, as McMahon put it, "some Americans question the power of the executive to make a unilateral and unreviewable decision to kill an American citizen who is not actively engaged in armed combat operations against this country." The real puzzle is why so many Americans seem happy to trust the president with this power.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @jacobsullum. To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

0 Comments | Post Comment
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Jacob Sullum
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 3 Sep 2014
Michael Barone
Michael BaroneUpdated 2 Sep 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 2 Sep 2014

26 Dec 2012 Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

17 Sep 2008 Palin's Pot Problem

19 Dec 2012 Flash Suppressors Do Not Kill People