The New York Times reported in May that President Obama was in charge of approving a “kill list” of U.S.-targeted terrorists in other countries, some of them American citizens.
As a supporter of Obama, I grapple with whether or not I can support something that seems so heinous.
In reality, we do not know a great deal about what the president is privy to. All we can do is hope that whomever has been elected office makes proactive decisions in the best interest of all.
I am skeptical, however, when national security decisions are made by one man.
In the U.S., if you were to have in your possession a list of people you plan to kill, you could potentially spend the rest of your life in prison. Ironically, our president has one, and it is completely legal.
But the U.S. justice system dictates that anyone suspected of a crime has the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. While the process is far from perfect, there is a reason for it.
So many have been killed at war – soldiers, innocent civilians and the potentially deserving. I wonder where the difference lies between hits at war and simply authorizing the killing of a suspected terrorist.
The alleged al-Qaida members, while not located on U.S. soil, should be protected by right of our own laws.
If both liberals and conservatives are so confused, as The New York Times suggests, then perhaps there is a tremendously good reason for what Obama is doing. Of course, the terrifying part of that statement is perhaps our confusion is justified and the Obama administration’s actions are extremely unethical and counterproductive.
