Here are a few excerpts from an American Civil Liberties Union blog post about the 16-page white paper that was obtained by NBC reporter Michael Isikoff earlier today. (Emphasis in bold type is mine.)
...The paper's basic contention is that the government has the authority to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen if "an informed, high-level official" deems him to present a "continuing" threat to the country.
...The white paper purports to recognize some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are so vague and elastic that they will be easily manipulated.
...the paper contends that the limits on the government's claimed authority are not enforceable in any court. ("There exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations.") According to the white paper, the government has the authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens without presenting evidence to a judge before the fact or after, and indeed without even acknowledging to the courts or to the public that the authority has been exercised.
...The white paper also suggests, incorrectly, that the courts have endorsed the view that there is no geographic limitation on the government's exercise of war powers...
...You can't reasonably read a case that permitted the military detention of an American on an actual battlefield to supply a green light for the extrajudicial killing of American terrorism suspects anywhere in the world.
...Finally, the white paper assumes a key conclusion: It takes as a given that the target of the strike will be a "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa'ida," and it reasons from that premise that judicial process is unnecessary. This is a little bit like assuming that the defendant is guilty and then asking whether it's useful to have a trial. Perhaps the white paper omits analysis that appears in the Justice Department's legal memos, but again the legal memos are, inexcusably, still secret.
...the power this white paper sets out will be available to every future president—and every "informed high-level official" (!)—in every future conflict.
How is it that this information is not dominating the conversation right now? Maybe it's the way it's being reported. Here are the headlines about this story as viewed using Google search results on a 23 inch desktop monitor.
- NBC: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone...
- NPR: 5 Questions About Justice Department Memo On Targeted Killings
- New York Times: Report on Targeted Killing Whets Appetite for Less Secrecy
- The Washington Post: Congress eyes limits on drones as memo details broad grounds for strikes against al-Qaida
- PBS NewsHour: Justice Department Justifies Killing Americans Abroad with Links to...
- Fox News: White House, Justice officials defend drone program after release of...
- Huffington Post: WH Press Secretary Hounded by Reporters About Drones.
There is nothing in any of those headlines that appropriately expresses that the American Government is actively conducting targeted kills of American Citizens who have not been charged, tried or convicted of any crime, who are nowhere near an active battlefield and who have not been tied to any active terror plot.
I find it hard to believe that this is going on and not only is it not the top conversation across all traditional and social media outlets, it's not even above the fold on Yahoo or Google News pages.
The top story on CNN U.S. today? Strom Thurmond's secret biracial daughter dies.
Le Sigh.
