Speaking to students and faculty at Northwestern University law school, Attorney General Eric Holder laid out in greater detail than ever before the legal theory behind the administration's belief that it can kill American citizens suspected of terrorism without charge or trial. In the 5,000-word speech, the nation's top law enforcement official directly confronted critics who allege that the targeted killing of American citizens violates the Constitution.
"'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." Holder said. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."
Who decides when an American citizen has had enough due process and the Hellfire missile fairy pays them a visit? Presumably the group of top national security officials—that, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, decides who is targetable and forwards its findings to the president, who gives final approval.
There won't be any drone strikes in Denver any time soon. But you might want to be careful when traveling abroad, because Holder made it clear that there are no geographical limits in the fight against Al Qaeda. "Neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan," Holder said. "We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country."
Holder is basing this authority on the AUMF for Afghanistan from Congress in 2001, which authorized appropriate and necessary force to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. But it was also Congress who said that the President could not close Gitmo, and that the President had to defer to military tribunals for captured suspects as well. I'm not happy with Holder's interpretation, but President Obama is not alone in the blame for the policy, either.
And the fact of the matter is 5 out of six Americans back the Obama administration's use of drones in Afghanistan against terrorists. That drops to 4 out of six when the target is a US citizen abroad who may be a terror suspect, still an overwhelming majority. Considering how tired Americans are of ground troops, armed drones seem to be a much more preferable way to deal with terrorists, frankly.
So when 3 out of 3 branches of the federal government approve of this, it's going to happen.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment