Does America's White Paper Permit the Killing of Americans?
The U.S. administration is not trying to market the U.S. Constitution or political ethics to the people through their ability to protect Americans outside the U.S. from the political assassinations that they have conducted for the past four years all over the world. It was not that the white paper the judicial branch issued was justified, or a logical intercession, in order to prevent a downward spiral of the American administration following the legalization of the killing of Americans outside their country without consulting Congress, which exists to protect American interests, in particular the civil rights of its citizens.
These Americans were killed by unmanned drones because the U.S. administration marked them as terrorists. Yet killing so many innocent people who had nothing to do with U.S. targets or policy has not satisfied America, and the same thing is happening in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The white paper is a bunch of justifications formulated by the Department of Justice to give legitimacy to exercising it against American citizens under false — and mostly exaggerated — pretexts. Where the legality of murder is concerned, it is the circumstances which make these killings and their application lawful, especially if it is against al-Qaida or its allies, given that killing its members is legitimate to protect U.S. national security.
The U.S. president has a fierce battle ahead of him. Eleven members of Congress have presented him with a request for the justifications that drove the U.S. administration to adopt the drone policy without Congress's approval, especially with the discussion of American citizens being targeted by drones. This committee has invited the American religious community to examine American civil rights and the reasons that would necessitate the killing of a citizen without a fair trial, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The ongoing debate in the American media and political arena does not leave this matter untouched, as it is about the nature of imminent danger and threats to national security. These factors permit the killing of Americans and the innocent with them, and it is defined by the concept of imminent danger. Who is the enemy, and who is authorized to classify Americans as either loyal or traitorous? What right does the administration have to confine its own citizens and to infringe on the rights of Americans to a fair, public trial, as affirmed by the Constitution? Because of this, there are countries at perpetual war with America, which has the right to kill members of al-Qaida and bystanders and takes advantage of the principle that there is no law against killing in war.
The use of unmanned drones, which the Obama administration considers a victory for America in order to meet its goals without significant losses, further fulfills Obama's promise to his people. At the start of Obama's first campaign, he swore to bring about fewer burials of soldiers from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
The U.S. administration's justification for this depends on not doing the killing themselves, as if it were the result of high treason or the battlefield, where killing is allowed. However, the administration's justifications have mixed up societal interests and the rights of citizens guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. do not have many options with Obama. Despite their support for Obama given that he promised to address their economic interests overall, they have disagreed with him on his foreign policy, which has legalized the murder of Americans, particularly those following Islam. Al-Qaida has become the pretext by which all of these assassinations are executed. Why kill innocent people in Yemen under the pretext of killing al-Qaida terrorists? Is Yemen in a state of war with America that allows force to be used, per the U.S. Constitution, or gives the right to the American army to kill anyone who threatens America from al-Qaida? Who among them are actually al-Qaida, and who were assassinated at the hands of Americans — and the non-Americans, are they not just Muslims?
With just three and a half years remaining in Obama's term, the issue of the Middle East continues to be a low priority despite the end of Obama's electoral constraints. If he is unable to lead politically and address the Iranian, Syrian and Palestinian issues, then the presidency will not be able to cast off eight years of deception and misinformation.
These Americans were killed by unmanned drones because the U.S. administration marked them as terrorists. Yet killing so many innocent people who had nothing to do with U.S. targets or policy has not satisfied America, and the same thing is happening in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The white paper is a bunch of justifications formulated by the Department of Justice to give legitimacy to exercising it against American citizens under false — and mostly exaggerated — pretexts. Where the legality of murder is concerned, it is the circumstances which make these killings and their application lawful, especially if it is against al-Qaida or its allies, given that killing its members is legitimate to protect U.S. national security.
The U.S. president has a fierce battle ahead of him. Eleven members of Congress have presented him with a request for the justifications that drove the U.S. administration to adopt the drone policy without Congress's approval, especially with the discussion of American citizens being targeted by drones. This committee has invited the American religious community to examine American civil rights and the reasons that would necessitate the killing of a citizen without a fair trial, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The ongoing debate in the American media and political arena does not leave this matter untouched, as it is about the nature of imminent danger and threats to national security. These factors permit the killing of Americans and the innocent with them, and it is defined by the concept of imminent danger. Who is the enemy, and who is authorized to classify Americans as either loyal or traitorous? What right does the administration have to confine its own citizens and to infringe on the rights of Americans to a fair, public trial, as affirmed by the Constitution? Because of this, there are countries at perpetual war with America, which has the right to kill members of al-Qaida and bystanders and takes advantage of the principle that there is no law against killing in war.
The use of unmanned drones, which the Obama administration considers a victory for America in order to meet its goals without significant losses, further fulfills Obama's promise to his people. At the start of Obama's first campaign, he swore to bring about fewer burials of soldiers from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
The U.S. administration's justification for this depends on not doing the killing themselves, as if it were the result of high treason or the battlefield, where killing is allowed. However, the administration's justifications have mixed up societal interests and the rights of citizens guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. do not have many options with Obama. Despite their support for Obama given that he promised to address their economic interests overall, they have disagreed with him on his foreign policy, which has legalized the murder of Americans, particularly those following Islam. Al-Qaida has become the pretext by which all of these assassinations are executed. Why kill innocent people in Yemen under the pretext of killing al-Qaida terrorists? Is Yemen in a state of war with America that allows force to be used, per the U.S. Constitution, or gives the right to the American army to kill anyone who threatens America from al-Qaida? Who among them are actually al-Qaida, and who were assassinated at the hands of Americans — and the non-Americans, are they not just Muslims?
With just three and a half years remaining in Obama's term, the issue of the Middle East continues to be a low priority despite the end of Obama's electoral constraints. If he is unable to lead politically and address the Iranian, Syrian and Palestinian issues, then the presidency will not be able to cast off eight years of deception and misinformation.