The New York Times objects to Obama declaring solely for himself the power to order the assassination of Americans, but has no problem with him doing so if a court gives its consent.
The editorial refers to a recent Times expose (which I wrote about here) that pointed out
that the Defense Department is currently killing suspects in Yemen without knowing their names, using criteria that have never been made public. The administration is counting all military-age males killed by drone fire as combatants without knowing that for certain, assuming they are up to no good if they are in the area. That has allowed Mr. Brennan to claim an extraordinarily low civilian death rate that smells more of expediency than morality.
The editorial states (emphasis added):
No one in that position should be able to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield — depriving Americans of their due-process rights — without the consent of someone outside his political inner circle.
The editorial concludes:
A unilateral campaign of death is untenable. To provide real assurance, President Obama should publish clear guidelines for targeting to be carried out by nonpoliticians, making assassination truly a last resort, and allow an outside court to review the evidence before placing Americans on a kill list. And it should release the legal briefs upon which the targeted killing was based.
So if a court reviews the evidence and gives its “consent”, then it would be totally okay for Obama to deprive Americans of their due-process rights and order their assassination, according to the New York Times.
Wake up, America.
