Executive Precidence

Executive Precedence

By Roy D. Follendore III

Imagine a future war that exists everywhere, with everyone, and all of the time. There is a single all powerful leader that has a console where he/she can issue an Executive Order to declare any citizen an enemy and immediately and then remotely terminate that individual. That person is instantly eliminated from existence without notice wherever he or she may be. Once declared, that citizen has no right of notice or appeal and other citizens have no right to notice or appeal on his/her behalf. It seems that through the use of technology and Executive Precedence this is the future to which we are moving. This essay questions and challenges some of the underlying assumptions that seem to be taking place.

December 4, 2002

In an article describing the administrations defense of targeted Executive killings, CBS News wrote today that "On Nov. 3, a CIA-operated Predator drone fired a missile that destroyed a carload of suspected al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. The target of the attack, a Yemeni named Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, was the top al Qaeda operative in that country." They went on to write, "the CIA didn't know a U.S. citizen, Yemeni-American Kamal Derwish, was in the car. He died, along with al-Harethi and four other Yemenis." Reporters were told by Presidential spokespersons that there was no Constitutional issues involved concerning the secret Executive order and that it would be legal to "put a missile into a vehicle" on the streets of Washington because the President has "defined the battlefield" of the war on terrorism as the entire planet. By declaring the battlefield of this war as our entire planet, this American President has by rational extension declared World War III. Where are the Presidential advisors, the dissenters, the protesters? One would think that there would be more dissention.

It seems to me that something is missing here. Maybe that something that is missing begins with the idea that American people have the right to due process. Assume for a moment that it is true that Kamal Derwish was a member of a terrorist organization. How does society know this? Who, when and where was made the determination that Mr. Derwish should be executed? Is there a committee of loyal political party members and Presidential supporters that makes these decisions? If that determination was made as a result of this individual's proximity to a known terrorist, then how does the public know that he was not involved under duress? Is there not a right for the public to know when one of us are are being hunted down to be killed?

The idea of American justice was founded on that essential concept that Americans are innocent until proven guilty. The idea that freedom of speech is an embedded part of the American judicial process. To these things I have to ask the question; Whose right to speak in defense of the victims are being abridged? Perhaps it is the victims mother. Perhaps it is the father, wife or sister. Without a trial, the opportunity for free speech has been abridged.

Our prisons are stuffed with dangerous scumbags that are obviously guilty of horrible crimes, but whose rights our judicial system requires that we spend tremendous sums of money and risk brave lives to protect. Why should we wait for the expense and risk of trials when we could far more easily blow them to hell on the highway? For those of you who agree with what has been taking place you probably do not care what happens to an accused terrorist. The difference is your assumption of guilt. It is that assumption which I suggest is our worst enemy. Why is America afraid to put terrorist on trial? Is it because we are fearful of going head to head against their message? If so then we should have more trust in our basic American values and a little less trust in our spin doctors.

The true reason that America is supposed to deliver the right to due process, and the right to a jury by peers is not just for those who are being charged with crimes. It is not just about "fair play." Public trials are a certification process through which societies publish how and why they are civilized. It is because the right to open due process through trials that keeps our American system of justice from becoming like the perpetual violence of those criminals being charged. If unilateral Executive privilege to assassinate American citizens exists in reality or through perception, then it becomes questionable as to what American representation by our Judicial and Legislative branches are really for. Such extrajudicial executions are widely recognized as international crimes. They can be seen as crimes against humanity. It is one thing to kill an American citizen who has not been charged or convicted of a terrorist crime accidentally and without prior knowledge, intent or prejudice, but it is a different matter to intentionally include that citizen on some death list just because a leader simply "thinks" that an American citizen is a terrorist. Maybe this is not the case. The question begs to be asked: Are secret trials taking place? If so then that secrecy violates the concept of acknowledgeable certification of civilized rule and for that reason it is not in the National Interest.

Before you go off an say that this is justified by war... consider that within both peace and war there are expenses which must be undertaken to maintain the certification of civilized society. The capture and trial of the abolitionist terrorist John Brown represents such an early example. Missions and general orders are mandated to capture enemy Americans to bring them to public trial, and today there is also the issue of the Geneva Convention to which America is an obligated participant. But the fact that we are also resisting by disallowing terrorists to be considered as combatants under the Geneva Convention is part of the point. This administration has created through this Executive Precedence a class of Americans who can be declared as having no right to due process of their rights under the law. Without public due process, this planet wide and open ended declaration of war essentially takes all of the oversight from the American citizen and delivers it to the executive branch. This is something that our founding fathers rejected. George Washington refused absolute power because he wisely understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He was aware of this because he was not just fighting the British, he was fighting the edicts of the King of England.

And for those who agree that this kind of administration of justice is just fine should consider the fact that these tactics are the same as those being used by our enemies. We have begun to blur the fine line between our American moral and ethical goals and theirs. This particular Executive Precedence appears to be undermining our American mandate to defend ourselves.

Authors Note: What this essay has been speaking about is not an un-American, it is about the inherent and traditional values of American society. It is about the idea that National Security should serve National Interests and not the other way around. It is about the question of what exactly is in the American National Interest. These essays are intended to pose a reasoned view through which honest debate may exist, so that the conflict of ideals may be competed. The true poison that threatens our society is allowed to thrive because we choose to ignore the internal threat of thoughtless complacency.

.