Murder at the DOJ

A few days ago, NBC News revealed a Department of Justice white paper that summarized the department's legal position on murdering Americans abroad who are suspected of terrorism: no problem!  Once the intended target is identified as a "senior operational leader" in al-Qaeda or an associated group, who poses an imminent threat to U.S. security, the DOJ now claims that person is fair game, du process be damned.  They do go to great lengths to blur the meaning of the word "imminent," leaving the actual definition to the reader.  Hey, what could possibly go wrong with that policy?  Let's see:

1.  The intel is wrong, the intended target is innocent, and they kill him anyway.

2.  The intel is right, but they misspells his name, so they target the wrong person.  Impossible?  As far as I can tell, no two government agencies can agree on the spelling of al-Qaeda.

3.  The intel is right, but they gets the address wrong and kills the target's neighbor ... and his family.

4.  The intel is right and a drone strike successfully kills the target ... along with the Turkish ambassador to Iran, with whom he is having dinner, which causes an international incident.  

The purpose of the Constitution - and the Magna Carta, for that matter - is to see that society is governed by the rule of law, not by the rule of men.  It is an insurance policy against tyrants.  National security is important, of course, but if we give our leaders the legal authority to execute whomever they see fit, without proof, without a trial, without oversight - in short, without due process - the game is over.  Once you have invoked the specter of national security, it is a small step indeed to move from executing Americans overseas to executing Americans at home.  Even if you happen to trust our current leaders, how do you know who will come next?  Imagine giving a man like Dick Cheney that kind of power.

This cannot be right.

Legalizing murder

A few days ago, NBC News revealed a Department of Justice white paper that summarized the department's legal position on murdering Americans abroad who are suspected of terrorism: no problem!  Once the intended target is identified as a "senior operational leader" in al-Qaeda or an associated group, who poses an imminent threat to U.S. security, the DOJ now claims that person is fair game, du process be damned.  They do go to great lengths to blur the meaning of the word "imminent," leaving the actual definition to the reader.  Hey, what could possibly go wrong with that policy?  Let's see:

1.  The intel is wrong, the intended target is innocent, and they kill him anyway.

2.  The intel is right, but they misspells his name, so they target the wrong person.  Impossible?  As far as I can tell, no two government agencies can agree on the spelling of al-Qaeda.

3.  The intel is right, but they gets the address wrong and kills the target's neighbor ... and his family.

4.  The intel is right and a drone strike successfully kills the target ... along with the Turkish ambassador to Iran, with whom he is having dinner, which causes an international incident.  

The purpose of the Constitution - and the Magna Carta, for that matter - is to see that society is governed by the rule of law, not by the rule of men.  It is an insurance policy against tyrants.  National security is important, of course, but if we give our leaders the legal authority to execute whomever they see fit, without proof, without a trial, without oversight - in short, without due process - the game is over.  Once you have invoked the specter of national security, it is a small step indeed to move from executing Americans overseas to executing Americans at home.  Even if you happen to trust our current leaders, how do you know who will come next?  Imagine giving a man like Dick Cheney that kind of power.

This cannot be right.