The recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki has justifiably unleashed a growing storm of controversy over the killing of two U.S citizens . The two were unquestionably terrorists and one could assume classified as enemy combatants and legitimate targets in a time of war. The strike is problematic for several reasons one of the most glaring is the apparent secrecy of the quote unquote air tight legal justification purported from un named officials high in the Obama administration. If this extremely concerning new legal precedent is so above board, why the hesitation to release the information? The president and the federal government themselves are bound by the same laws as the rest of us and if this was indeed a good shooting or air strike In this case, why the resistance to submit there policy for public, legal and judicial review?
This administration has made much of its transparency and yet at every turn the President and his administration seem to conduct all business behind closed doors. These acts no matter the unquestioned legitamicy of the targets in this, case open the door to a whole array of unsettling precedence such as under what circumstances can the president of the united states decide that you a U.S should be killed. Is this a legal decision that the president can make, and if so what is to stop him form making such a decision within the United States.
President Obama’s actions to date including the barrage of executive orders issue by his white house seem to point more toward someone who does not feel that the rules apply to him and that he can with the waive of a wand or in this case an executive order by pass rules laws and the constitution at need.
While I can’t help but be glad that such an enemy has been eradicated I also cant help but be very disturbed in the manner of its accomplishment. The president after all is not judge jury and high executioner or is he.
No comments:
Post a Comment