[THS] Sentencing Terrorism Suspects to Death -- Without Trial

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26307.htm

Sentencing Terrorism Suspects to Death -- Without Trial

By Anthony D. Romero and Vincent Warren

September 07, 2010 "Washington Post" - - September 3, 2010 -- Since 2001, the
United States has been carrying out "targeted killings" in connection with what the
Bush administration called the "war on terror" and the Obama administration calls the
"war against al-Qaeda." While many of these killings have been carried out on
battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq, our government has increasingly been employing
lethal force in places far removed from any zone of armed conflict, effectively
carrying out executions without trial or conviction. Some of the individuals on the
government's kill lists are U.S. citizens.

On Monday, our organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of targeted
killings that take place outside zones of armed conflict. We did not do this lightly. But
we simply cannot accept the proposition that the government should have unchecked
authority to carry out extrajudicial killings, including of U.S. citizens, far from any
actual battlefield. Nor can we accept the contention that the entire world is a
battlefield. In protecting this country from the threat of terrorism, the government
cannot jettison the rights that Americans have fought for more than two centuries to
safeguard.

In zones of armed conflict, targeted killing can be a lawful tactic. But outside the
context of armed conflict, targeted killing is legal only as a last resort and in the face
of a truly imminent threat to life -- and then only because the immediacy of the
threat makes judicial process infeasible. Outside these narrow circumstances,
targeted killing amounts to the imposition of a death sentence without charge, trial or
conviction. Notably, Anwar al-Aulaqi, the cleric whose rights are at issue in the lawsuit
we filed on Monday, has not been charged with a crime, but he has reportedly been
the target of almost a dozen missile strikes in Yemen. While the government might
argue that targeted killings in Pakistan along the border regions of Afghanistan are
connected to the armed conflict there, it can hardly make that argument with regard
to Yemen, which is far removed from any armed conflict.

The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious. Without it, we cannot be
assured that the people the government kills are individuals who presented a threat
to the country. Indeed, over the past decade, our government has repeatedly
labeled men terrorists only to find out later -- or to be told by a federal judge -- that
the evidence was overstated, wrong or nonexistent. If we invest the government with
unchecked authority to impose death sentences on people who have never been
convicted of or even charged with a crime, it is inevitable that innocent people will be
executed.

The conduct of our government heavily influences the practices of other countries.
The United States would in all likelihood not endorse the authority it claims for
targeted killings if it were asserted by other countries. Americans would surely be
appalled if another country claimed the right to send a drone after a declared enemy
in Wyoming.

The government has the tools it needs to address the threat posed by suspected
terrorists, including Americans, who find refuge in other countries. It can indict
suspected terrorists and seek their extradition. It can seize their assets. It can share
intelligence with other countries so that they can charge and try suspected terrorists.
It can provide financial and technical support to other countries' law enforcement
and intelligence services. In a truly extraordinary case, the government may have no
choice but to use lethal force to address a threat that is both grave and imminent.
But if we are to preserve anything resembling the rule of law, the government's
authority to use lethal force against its own citizens must be limited to such grave and
imminent threats.

The Obama administration's program of targeted killings appears to be far broader
than the law permits. The administration has refused to disclose crucial information --
such as the standard under which individuals are added to kill lists, the circumstances
in which individuals may be targeted outside the context of armed conflict, and the
number of Americans on the lists. According to news reports, names are added to kill
lists after a secret bureaucratic process, and at least some names have been on the
lists for months. Whatever else may be said about this approach, it is plainly not
limited to individuals who present an imminent threat.

Many Americans rightly reacted with alarm when the Bush administration claimed
worldwide authority to detain suspected terrorists -- including U.S. citizens -- without
charge or trial. We should react with similar if not stronger alarm to the Obama
administration's claim of worldwide authority to kill suspected terrorists without
charge or trial. A wrongly imprisoned suspect may eventually be set free. But there is
no recourse from a missile.

Anthony D. Romero is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Vincent
Warren is executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.