Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Op-Eds

Killing terrorists, then and now

An unsigned and undated Justice Department white paper, obtained by NBC News, reports The New York Times, "... is the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view regarding the Obama legal team's views about the lawfulness of killing, without a trial, an American citizen who executive branch officials decide is an operational leader of Al Qaeda or one of its allies."

The proviso is they must pose "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." If "an informed, high-level official" of the government decides they are a threat, the paper says, and if capture is not feasible, they may be killed.

There hasn't been a huge outcry from those on the left who attacked President George W. Bush for his doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against terrorists. Recall, too, the vitriol directed at Vice President Dick Cheney for defending "enhanced interrogation" techniques on suspected terrorists in order to obtain information that might prevent new attacks against Americans.

The unclassified paper comes from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which, according to the Times, provided justification for killing the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki, born in New Mexico, was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen in September 2011.

The white paper cites a national right to self-defense in wartime, but goes a step further. As summarized by The New York Times: "(It) emphasizes that the decision to kill a citizen in certain circumstances is not one in which courts should play any role, asserting that judges should not restrain the executive branch in making tactical judgments about when to use force against a senior al Qaeda leader."

Weren't some conservatives who made the same argument during the Bush administration criticized in certain newspaper editorials, and by liberal commentators and the Hollywood elite?

The white paper says that if a target poses an imminent threat to the U.S., and cannot be captured, the strike "would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles." It goes on to read, "A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination. In the Department's view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat ... would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban."

The American Civil Liberties Union has been consistent with both the Bush and Obama administrations. It strongly -- and wrongly in my view -- criticized President Bush for his anti-terrorism policies. Reacting to the publication of the white paper, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, called it "a profoundly disturbing document." "It's hard to believe," she added, "that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances." She characterized it as "... a stunning overreach of executive authority."

She may have a point. One that should be debated in Congress. Appropriate committees should invite or, if necessary, subpoena the person or persons, who wrote the document. U.S. citizens should know what kind of action constitutes "imminent threat." At present, the government's definition is a little cryptic.

Given the way some criminal lawyers have "gamed" the U.S. court system to free hardened criminals, the president might be justified in this approach, but the larger question of how much authority he should be allowed to have in these circumstances and whether U.S. citizenship alone should be enough to guarantee due process when there is substantial evidence someone is involved in plots to kill other Americans, is a subject worthy of congressional consideration.

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist. Readers may email him at tmseditors@tribune.com.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Health insurance exchanges need an upgrade
    Health insurance exchanges need an upgrade

    Established by the Affordable Care Act, the Healthcare.gov exchange and its 14 state-run counterparts have enrolled more than 11 million people — 800,000 of whom were sent incorrect tax information, the Obama administration admitted last month.

  • Helping ex-offenders stay out of prison
    Helping ex-offenders stay out of prison

    Every year, roughly 10,000 people leave prison and return to Baltimore City; 4,000 of them — 40 percent — will return to prison within three years. This must change.

  • A future-oriented agenda for the GOP's presidential candidates
    A future-oriented agenda for the GOP's presidential candidates

    Here's some advice, not only for Mr. Cruz, but for the other would-be GOP candidates: Instead of nonstop attacks on President Obama, adopt a positive and future-oriented agenda.

  • The people's representatives should be elected
    The people's representatives should be elected

    Members of Congress don't always complete their terms due to factors like death, a new job and scandal. When a House seat becomes vacant, the Constitution requires an election to fill it, and every House member has been elected. The 17th amendment established direct election of Senators as...

  • No weather TLC without TWC
    No weather TLC without TWC

    People love to talk about the weather. And people listen to those who know what they're talking about — like meteorology guru Jim Cantore. But when Verizon FiOS unexpectedly dropped The Weather Channel (TWC) from its line-up on March 10, those voices went silent for the cable company's...

  • The conservative case for same-sex marriage
    The conservative case for same-sex marriage

    Before the current Supreme Court session ends this summer, the justices will make a landmark decision on same-sex marriage. But conservatives shouldn't wait to lose in court. They should accept same-sex marriage now.

Comments
Loading