One of our most basic rights as Americans, and something we all learn in grade school, is that people accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty. Would it surprise you to learn, therefore, that our president is currently endowed with the authority to order assassinations of Americans abroad for simply being suspected terrorists? At this moment, American citizens abroad who have ties to terrorists may have to fear for their lives — and cannot expect a right to trial or an opportunity to clear their names. This policy began after Sept. 11 — former President George W. Bush gave the CIA (and later the military) the authority to kill any American citizen abroad if they were suspected of being a terrorist, or in any way working to endanger the lives of Americans. President Barack Obama has since maintained that policy, and what surprises me is that most people don't really seem to mind.
Perhaps it's because they don't clearly understand what this means. It means that President Obama has the authority to order the assassination of American citizens without any checks or balances whatsoever on his decision. In an article in The Washington Post from Jan. 27, investigative reporter Dana Priest expanded on the evidence needed to warrant an assassination. Priest wrote, "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose ‘a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,' said one former intelligence official." But assassinations can take place without any trial, without giving the accused any opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. And people aren't outraged about this? With the exception of the odd political blogger, I haven't seen this story getting tremendous press in the mainstream media.
One of the many ironies in this situation is that President Obama, who so violently raged against the horrors of Guantanamo Bay, has maintained a policy that goes much farther than simply imprisoning suspected terrorists without a trial — he is now in fact authorized to murder them. Think of all the suspected terrorists from Guantanamo who have been found innocent since Obama took office — and now imagine that those men and women had been murdered instead of jailed. Remember the uproar that was caused when we learned that the Bush administration had been wiretapping our phones without any checks or balances from the judiciary? Seems to pale in comparison now, doesn't it?
The Sixth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution lays out a few important rights — namely, the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, a notice of accusation and the right to counsel. Is it fair, or right, that simply because an American is abroad and suspected of being a terrorist, he is entitled to something less than the full protection of the law that is his birthright?
These constitutional rights should be, and have historically been, true all of the time, not only when we are in times of peace. Many people have defended Obama's stand on this issue by believing that during wartime, certain extreme measures must be taken to provide for the security of Americans.
Glenn Greenwald, a political commentator for Salon.com and a former constitutional lawyer, disputes these beliefs skillfully: "First, there's no ‘war exception' in the Constitution. Even with real wars — [for example], those involving combat between opposing armies — the Constitution actually continues to constrain what government officials can do, most stringently as it concerns U.S. citizens. Second, strictly speaking, we're not really ‘at war,' as Congress has merely authorized the use of military force but has not formally or constitutionally declared war."
The real question is to what extent do we let our fear of terrorism negate all of our basic and democratic beliefs about human rights? If all it takes to nullify the Constitution is to call someone a terrorist, then we are on a very slippery slope here. How long before this authority concerns not just Americans abroad, but here at home? We have seen many acts of terrorism perpetrated by Americans on American soil — on Feb. 18, really just the other day, Joe Stack flew a plane into a building in Texas. Should he be assassinated in his sleep, without any right to defend himself in a court of law? We could very easily get to a point where our constitutional right to free speech is essentially stripped away for fear of being seen as a terrorist, and therefore running the risk of assassination by the government.
In 2006, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore made a speech about the "constitutional crisis" during the Bush administration: "If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?" Add assassination of American citizens to this list, and you really have a horror story on your hands. Based on the overblown and ultimately unproductive reaction to the botched Christmas Day Bombing, it doesn't look like the national hysterical reaction to the word terrorist is going to die down any time soon.
We must understand, however, as American citizens, that our executive is wielding power that is unconstitutional and dangerous. This act has the potential to strip all of us of some of our basic human rights. And although right now that power is yielded by our seemingly rational and sane President Obama, there may very soon come a day where you will see your life in the hands of some other, much scarier commander in chief. Democrats and liberals must realize that becoming too complacent about executive power while there is a Democrat in the Oval Office could lead to disastrous consequences in the years to come.
--
Phoebe Pickering is a senior majoring in English.
