Example Of Term Paper On Ethical And Legal Justifications For The Targeted Assassinations Of United States

It should be appreciated that the rising spate of terrorist activities has occasioned a number of changes in the combined efforts aimed at mitigation and elimination. It should be noted that these changes have assumed ethical, legal, political, economic and social characters. In overall, stakeholders are motivated by the need to tackle and address terrorism and see its eventual elimination. This paper shall be based on the Department of Justice White Paper on terrorism in relation to the citizens of America. The paper shall examine the complexity of the laws and policies in the face of the citizen involvement in terrorist activities. In ordinary parlance it would be expected that American are attacked by non-citizen enemies. However, the currency of events has shown that even citizens of America harbour the potential of turning into enemies and even attacking American citizens and territory. This occurrence introduces a number of complexities that ought to be addressed and tackled within the confines of the law. It is on this premise that ethical and legal justifications are availed to the public through publications such as the White Paper. The next sections shall elaborate on some of the ethical and legal justifications.
Foremost, the assassination of American citizens involved in terrorism has been premised on the political ethic base of the United States of America. It is a fact that American President is vested with the powers and responsibilities to defend and protect the American territory and the American citizenry. The first limb of this protection requires that the American President protect the territory of America from any external aggression. In this context, the law requires that the President be ready through the military to prevent, fight and capture any aggressors whose actions in any way could go into insulting or challenging the sovereignty and right of existence of the United States of America. This political function premised on the law succinctly allows the President to take any action that would go into defending the country.
The second limb of the protection role is premised on the right to life conferred upon each citizen of America. This right is one of the inalienable rights protected and guaranteed by the United States of America Constitution. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the President in the execution of his political functions to see to it that the citizenry are protected from any external or internal threats that could go into affecting and disabusing the citizen’s right to life. In this context, the President has no option but to ensure the security of the state and its people. It is from this premise that the President and his government approaches the issues of terrorism. In the event the terrorist is a citizen of the United States of America, a number of complexities are introduced. However, the weight of the interests in question is what will determine the decision and consequential approach pursued. It is within that limit that the law imposes on the Presidency the duties to protect the citizens from the threats imposed by such a terrorism citizen. However, the application of this law is complicated and based on a number of conditions. These conditions suffice as the main legal justifications for the assassination of American citizens. They fall within the backdrop of American rule of law and constitutionalism. It should be noted that the justifications are in themselves an example of the contrasting interests that the law may and at times places in society.
In the occurrence that a citizen of America threatens that security of his own country, a number of alternatives are available in addressing the problem. Often, the settled course of action is based on the prevailing conditions. For example, one of the main consideration is the residence of this citizen at the time of this ensuing threats. In the case that the citizen is found within the confines of the territory of the United States of America, he shall be arrested and subjected to the civilian court process which shall observe his rights has granted by the Constitution under the Fourth and the Fifth Amendment. It is illustrative to note that the Fourth Amendment grants such a citizen a right to self defense while the Fifth Amendment grants the citizen Due Process during the trial. However, chances are that the citizens may not be resident in America. In this case some of the available options at the disposal of the President include assassination. However, this option is employed with a set of conditions which shall form the basis of the next discussion.
The application of assassination of citizens assumes a tripartite approach. The President must satisfy the three conditions. These are, that the citizen has demonstrates to be capable of causing a violent threat on the United States of America, that the capture of this citizen is infeasible and that the process embraces the law of wars that are applicable. This approach is legally and ethically justifiable. For starters, it should be read in light with the presidential duty mentioned in the previous section. The constitution imposes a constitution duty on the Presidency to protect the American territory and safeguard the citizen’s right to security. This is a public duty that is threatened by a terrorism citizen. The President, therefore, has to weigh between upholding the public duty or the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of the citizen. It would be prudent to first pursue the legal option that does not involve assassination. However, as indicated in the second condition, it may be the position that capture of this citizen is infeasible. The state with all its machinery may not be in the position to capture the citizen. On the surface, this may appear preposterous. However, given that the citizen often is located in external countries, international law that respects sovereignty of the nations may disallow the state from capturing the citizen due to issues of territorial invasion or non-cooperation by the host country. It is consequently incumbent on the Presidency to ensure that this citizen is prevent from posing security threats of a terrorism nature. In light of the foregoing, it is considered ethically justifiable to eliminate this citizen through any means feasible. Assassination forms one of the means of elimination. The legal justification relies on condition three. That is, that the attack would apply principles of the law of war. The main principles of the law of war include necessity, distinction, proportionality and humanity. For instance, the attack visited on the citizen must be in proportion to the threat he poses to the nation’s security. In addition, the attack must be within the confines of humanity.
It is this paper’s contention that the justifications are valid and workable. Indeed, the law must be reasonable and practicable. It would be impossible for the President to discharge his public duty on security while at the same time observe the terrorist citizen’s constitutional rights. A balance must to be obtained in favour of public interest and public policy. This validates the approached pursued as explained in the White Paper. In addition, the good of the majority often assumes superiority over that of the individual. One should also appreciate the fact the approach is pursued as the last resort. It is expected and imposed on the state to foremost pursue other options that do not involve death. However, in the event all alternatives are exhausted, then the approach becomes justified. As to the workability of this approach, it should be noted that the approach is embracive of the law of war. It, therefore, means that it would be within the confines of international law and would meet no legal challenges. In addition, it is the easiest way of dealing with cases of terrorism where external aggressors have conspired to prevent any apprehension of these citizens. It is executable without their permission.
In the long run, this approach fully addresses the contrasting demands of public interest versus individual rights all based on the constitution. It also enables the President to exercise constitutionalism and the rule of law through the protection of citizenry and the overall public interest. It is this paper’s conclusion that the approach assumed by the United States of America in preventing external threats posed by the citizen terrorists is justifiable.
Works Cited