A different view

Presidential Powers and Targeted Assassinations

I have doubts that Israel's policy of targeted assassinations work. It seems that every time the Likud has negotiated a peace treaty with Hamas, they've turned around and assassinated a Hamas leader. Now I doubt the Hamas targets were in any way innocent, though there were occasionally civilians that were incidental victims.

But the end result was to keep tensions high and a constant crisis in the newspapers, which was great for fundraising. Both Israel and Palestine are welfare states, dependent on hand-outs from outside groups.

This is similar to the model used by the Family Reasearch Council of Focus on the Family, the ACLU, or MoveOn.org.

Now there is talk of President Bush legally using targeted assassinations here in the U.S. While this may be no more idle academic speculation, with hearings being conducted on domestic eavesdropping it seems to be another tug at the bounds of presidential powers.

Does this really do anyone good? If there is a real and provable crisis, then law enforcement knows they can use lethal force in the conduct of their duties. If a terrorist is not actively committing a crime, then why use lethal force as the first option? But even more questionable is even bringing up the topic in the first place.

In the ever ongoing expansion of presidential powers, is assassination in the US the next line to be crossed? I feel like Robin Williams in Toys, with the walls pressing ever more inward, intruding on my everyday life with blatant disregard for what I think is appropriate. In both the movie and in real life, I think the jealous hording of military power has become an end unto itself.

With voters feeling ever threatened, the Republican party can use these crisis and talk of ever growing and necessary powers to cow and herd the American people in the direction most beneficial to their cause, an ever ratcheting grip on the American people.

posted by don1one @ 4:54 PM