Jacqueline Marcus: Why Covert Assassinations Are Illegal -- Legalizing the Illegal Doesn't Make It Right

BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
by Jacqueline Marcus

In The New York Times' editorial, Illegal & Pointless, the author argues "that many of those programs could have been conducted just as easily within the law -- perhaps more effectively and certainly with far less damage to the justice system and to Americans' faith in their government."

The premise that all will be well so long as the illegal wire-tapping and assassinations are legalized under the authority of Congress is troubling.

Secretly wire-tapping my phone conversations or your phone conversations with journalists, friends, and members of your family for no rational explanation except to say that every single American citizen is a suspect is a direct violation of our constitutional rights and represents an Orwellian Government.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, there has to be "probable cause." There has to be proof, evidence that an individual has committed or would commit harmful actions. This is the intent of the law. It's unacceptable to make a huge leap from getting an individual warrant on the basis of evidence to wire-tapping every citizen in the U.S.

We need to remember that when the Bush Administration used fear as a tactic, nearly every member of Congress passed the Patriot Act without even reading it. Rendition, wire-tapping, spying on innocent citizens, actions that were once regarded under our Constitution as illegal, became legal under the phony title: Homeland Security.

A broader question is if Homeland Security laws have anything to do with protecting Americans or do they have more to do with Corporate Watch? Now the talk is that they were unnecessary; beyond the utilitarian point, let's not forget that they were intrinsically bad, unethical laws.

If Congress were to approve of covert wire-tapping of every citizen, then our representatives would essentially be legalizing that which is illegal. As J.S. Mill concluded in "On Liberty," to argue that illegal government invasion is for our own good is no justification for violating our civil liberties and privacy.

The author makes the same assumption regarding covert assassinations of so-called Al Qaeda leaders:

"We know less, so far, about the Bush administration's plan to send covert paramilitary teams to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. But what is overwhelmingly clear is that there was no legal or rational justification for Vice President Dick Cheney's order to conceal the program from Congress. The plan was never put into effect, apparently because it was unworkable. But it's hard to imagine Congress balking at killing terrorists."

Covert assassinations and extraordinary rendition are illegal for several reasons: First, what if they have the wrong guy? We know, for example, that many innocent individuals were swept up under the wide net of terrorism and thrown in prison. Second, how will the government interpret who is the bad guy from the good guy? For example, what if an Afghani father is simply protecting his family from a sudden and inexplicable ambush, a father who has done nothing wrong, but is invaded all the same? Will this father be considered an Al Qaeda leader -- because he resisted or, like John Walker, he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Should he now be assassinated? The underlining theme of these examples is the "presumption of innocence," a principle that has been buried since the start of the Bush Regime.

There seems to be a national blindness, a lack of reflection on the meaning and intent of our Constitutional Laws, the minute the phrase "Al Qaeda" is uttered. Congress and everyone else for that matter are suddenly hypnotized; all questions cease, all reflection on the intent of the law is lost. Who would have guessed that a small group of Islamic angry men could have such a powerful influence in our country? All you have to say is "Al Qaeda" and the Bill of Rights is flushed down the toilet.

If we assume that the illegal could have easily been made legal, then one could argue that torture is acceptable if the practice has the approval of Congress and is made legal.

The author meant well, but it's important to examine the ethical and moral intent of the laws. There are justifiable reasons why covert assassinations, rendition, torturing prisoners, and national spying are illegal and why they should not become legal with a simple stamp of approval from Congress. I do agree with the author's conclusion:

"President Obama has refused to open a full investigation of the many laws that were evaded, twisted or broken -- pointlessly and destructively -- under Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama should change his mind. A full accounting is the only way to ensure these abuses never happen again."

BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY

Jacqueline Marcus' poems have appeared in The Kenyon Review, The Ohio Review, The Antioch Review, The Journal, The Wallace Stevens Journal, The Literary Review, Mid-American Review, Poetry International, Hotel Amerika, The Delta Review, The American Poetry Journal and more. Her book of poems, Close to the Shore, was published by Michigan State University Press. Her political essays have been published at CommonDreams.org and BuzzFlash.com. She taught philosophy at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, California, and is the editor of http://www.ForPoetry.com. She is currently promoting green technologies (solar & wind) on the island of Maui. www.GoSolarMaui.com