Thursday, February 14, 2013

Stirred Slightly, But Not Shaken

Trey Smith

What this DOJ "white paper" did was to force people to confront Obama's assassination program without emotionally manipulative appeal to some cartoon Bad Guy Terrorist (Awlaki). That document never once mentioned Awlaki. Instead - using the same creepily clinical, sanitized, legalistic language used by the Bush DOJ to justify torture, renditions and warrantless eavesdropping - it set forth the theoretical framework for empowering not just Obama, but any and all presidents, to assassinate not just Anwar Awlaki, but any citizens declared in secret by the president to be worthy of execution. Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee wrote that the DOJ memo "should shake the American people to the core", while Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman explained "the revolutionary and shocking transformation of the meaning of due process" ushered in by this memo and said it constituted a repudiation of the Magna Carta.

In doing so, this document helpfully underscored the critical point that is otherwise difficult to convey: when you endorse the application of a radical state power because the specific target happens to be someone you dislike and think deserves it, you're necessarily institutionalizing that power in general. That's why political leaders, when they want to seize extremist powers or abridge core liberties, always choose in the first instance to target the most marginalized figures: because they know many people will acquiesce not because they support that power in theory but because they hate the person targeted. But if you cheer when that power is first invoked based on that mentality - I'm glad Obama assassinated Awlaki without charges because he was a Bad Man! - then you lose the ability to object when the power is used in the future in ways you dislike (or by leaders you distrust), because you've let it become institutionalized.
Why did Obama think he could establish a secret kill list that denies due process in the first place? It is because of the foundation set by his predecessor. George Bush set this particular ball in motion and only a fool would not understand that the ball is picking up speed. For unknown reasons, you may trust Obama -- though I don't understand how ANY president can be trusted if he (or she) maintains that he (or she) can supersede the US Constitution whenever they feel like it -- but will you trust the next president or the one after that?

If we use American history as our yardstick, we know the political pendulum swings back and forth. One or the other mainstream political parties will hold sway for a time and then, after a while, the pendulum swings back in the other direction. If you "know" in your heart of hearts that President Obama will do "right" by the American people, do you want a Republican president to wield this same power? Do you want a president you patently distrust to be able to draw up secret kill lists and then kill people you may not dislike?

Here's the other part of the equation you need to think about NOW. Bush declared that the Oval Office could eavesdrop and detain US citizens without due process. Obama has upped the ante by declaring that he can kill US citizens without due process. Logic tells us that the next president will up the ante further. Are you prepared to go down that road?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.