Three weeks into his second term, President Barack Obama is making headlines, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
In a 16-page memo obtained by NBC News, Obama’s legal team has argued that they have sufficient legal precedent to justify the killing of American citizens who are key leaders affiliated with al-Qaeda.
According to the leaked document, an “informed, high-level official” has the authority to determine who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” according to The New York Times.
While I acknowledge that times of war pose unparalleled and difficult legal situations, I do not agree with the Obama administration allowing “informed, high-level officials” to determine whether an individual should be killed.
In short, I do not agree with one person in government having enough power to determine whether an individual should be a target of the U.S. government, based solely on often murky intelligence.
According to the NBC memo, there are three criteria that must be met to justify killing an American citizen affiliated with al-Qaeda.
The first, as mentioned previously, is when a high-ranking official determines the target.
The second states that the capture of the said individual has to be unfeasible, meaning that the actual possibility of capturing the individual alive is low.
The third, and final, criterion is that the killing operation would be conducted in a manner “consistent with applicable law of war principles.”
For a legal team, the phrase “law of war principles” is at best grey and murky. Following the list of criteria, the memo mentions dozens of cases that are used to justify killing an American citizen who is a leader “actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.”
Although I disagree with some of the memo’s statements, I understand why it was written.
Over the years, there have been a few select American citizens who have joined terrorist organizations and plotted against their home country.
One of the most famous cases, the 2011 killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, has shown that the U.S. has very little tolerance for “traitors.”
While I acknowledge that individuals plotting against the U.S. government should be dealt with forcefully, I do not agree with the process of determining whether the individual is a high-ranking terrorist member or not.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution clearly state that “nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” Clearly, the Obama administration deprived al-Awlaki of his life without trying him in court.
In the Obama administration’s defense though, could they have feasibly brought him out of the Middle East and into a U.S. court? Sadly, the world will never know the answer to that hypothetical question. In the meantime, let’s worry about future cases and the possible over-reaching, kill-friendly hand of the current Obama administration.
Shane Newell is a sophomore journalism major and an assistant city editor for the Daily 49er.