Certain Doubt

Down the Rabbit Hole

Author: Thomas Vincent posted on Tuesday, November 9th, 2010 at 8:13 pm

It is almost too fantastic to be believed. In fact, if the suit hadn’t been brought by both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights I would have suspected it as a satirical piece by the Onion.

The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat.

That’s it. We now have a US president who asserts he has the right to target and kill anyone, anytime, anyplace… even American citizens!

Think about this for a minute. If the president, any president, is allowed this power, the basis for our entire legal system is rendered null and void. No longer is there any guaranteed presumption of innocence. There is no arrest, no trial, no conviction, and definitely no appeal. According to the Obama administration if the president says you are a threat to America, you go on a secret hit list. If you show your face, bang you’re dead. Or, if they can’t get close enough to assassinate you the old fashioned way, the president can send a drone to unleash a hellfire missile and boom, you and everyone around you are dead.

In my opinion, the ACLU and the CCR are in a strong position in this case. As Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU said in his argument: “If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have the unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state…”

The fact that Obama, who campaigned on the promise to uphold the rule of law, should go along with a court position that completely dismantles the rule of law is bad enough. But what really sends this whole mess though the looking glass and down the rabbit hole is the government’s claim that anyone who wishes to challenge the president’s authority to assassinate his own citizens must first obtain a license from the government to do so.

In the CCR’s words:

On August 3, 2010, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the licensing scheme that requires them to obtain a license in order to file a lawsuit concerning the government’s asserted authority to carry out targeted killings of individuals, including U.S. Citizens, far from any battlefield.

Think about that one for a second. A lawyer who wishes to challenge the constitutionality of a government action must now ask permission to do so from the very government it is challenging? In plain language, this is just plain nuts!

But wait, it gets better. The CCR synopsis goes on to say:

The OFAC requirements generally make it illegal to provide any service, including legal representation, to or for the benefit of a designated individual. (such as someone on a targeted assassination list) A lawyer who provides legal representation for the benefit of a designated person without getting special permission is subject to criminal and civil penalties.

So now, not only does the government assert its right to create and maintain secret lists of citizens to be assassinated but any one who attempts to defend a person who shows up on one of these assassination lists, without first obtaining the government’s permission, can be fined and thrown in jail?

On its face the government’s argument makes no sense. This is not even an argument that could hold up in a high school debate. If I were a judge I would give the government a tongue lashing for even trying to make a stand on this one. If the Supreme Court rejects the government’s claim to an unchecked system of global detention, why on earth would they approve an unchecked system of global targeted assassination?

As Bill Quigley of the CCR argues in a Truth-Out.org editorial: “Our constitutional system of checks and balances does not allow the executive branch of government to just decide in secret that they are going to kill people.”

In commenting on the controversial nature of the plaintiff in question, Anwar Al-aulaqi, Quigley goes on to note: “The right to go to court to challenge the government is a core US value. It is important that we win the right to represent him no matter how controversial he is. Otherwise, the government can deprive citizens of their right to a lawyer at the exact same time as they are trying to kill them.”

As it deals with terrorism, it is difficult to remove one’s emotions from this case. However, regardless of how you feel about terrorism, regardless of your attitudes towards Mr. Al-Aulaqi – and the things he has allegedly done – consider for a moment how comfortable you would be putting the power to execute U.S. Citizens – without a trial, without any oversight, or even any judicial review – into the hands of someone like say, Richard Nixon, Dick Cheney, John McCain, or even, dare I say it, President Sara Palin?

Think about that one the next time you go to the polls.

Tags: ACLU, American, Assassination, CCR, citizen, government, legal, Obama, secret, supreme court, targeted killing, United States

This entry is filed under Daily Doubt, Ethics, Politics, law, warfare. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.