The New York Times on Eric Holder's Speech
Well, it's the Sunday after the attorney general's address on targeted killing, so naturally, we awaken to a New York Times editorial blasting the speech:
President Obama, who came to office promising transparency and adherence to the rule of law, has become the first president to claim the legal authority to order an American citizen killed without judicial involvement, real oversight or public accountability.That, regrettably, was the most lasting impression from a major addr
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Well, it's the Sunday after the attorney general's address on targeted killing, so naturally, we awaken to a New York Times editorial blasting the speech:
President Obama, who came to office promising transparency and adherence to the rule of law, has become the first president to claim the legal authority to order an American citizen killed without judicial involvement, real oversight or public accountability.That, regrettably, was the most lasting impression from a major address on national security delivered last week by Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. There were parts of the speech worth celebrating — starting with Mr. Holder’s powerful discussion of why trying most terrorists in civilian courts is best for punishing them and safeguarding America. But we are deeply concerned about his rejection of oversight and accountability when it comes to killing American citizens who are suspected of plotting terrorist acts.
The Times has two basic complaints about Holder's speech--first, that Holder gave a speech, rather than releasing the OLC memo underlying the Al-Aulaqi killing, and second, that he did not embrace a FISA-like structure to supervise targeted killings:
Perhaps most disturbing, Mr. Holder utterly rejected any judicial supervision of a targeted killing. We have said that a decision to kill an American citizen should have judicial review, perhaps by a special court like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorizes eavesdropping on Americans’ communications. . . . Mr. Holder argued in his speech that judicial process and due process guaranteed by the Constitution “are not one and the same.” This is a straw man. The judiciary has the power to say what the Constitution means and make sure the elected branches apply it properly. The executive acting in secret as the police, prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner is the antithesis of due process.
Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of several books.
-(1).jpg?sfvrsn=2f7409f8_5)
