Our nation's policy on extrajudicial executions should be debated, not dismissed by politicized rhetoric, as it was by some professors at a recent panel discussion (see "Torture debate marked by controversy from history prof.," Oct. 18). The issue ultimately evolves into a debate between two competing extremes. Do we forbid all targeted assassinations and tie our hands against acting on known and credible threats? Or, do we allow our nation's leaders to execute foreign tyrants and domestic insurgents without trial, and risk sliding down the slippery slope towards Orwellian lawlessness?
I believe that we should not gravitate towards either extreme -- full permission or full prohibition -- but instead establish a pragmatic policy of evaluating the threats on an individual basis. Such a law would provide the United States with the necessary moral and political authority to protect its citizens from foreign and domestic threats. It will also endow our nation with the greatest responsibility: acting as the world's policeman.
But liberal critics and fellow Democrats should not shy away from that phrase simply because of the stigma that comes with it. We are already the police officer of the world. We should come to terms with our place in the world as the sole superpower and embrace both the freedom and responsibility that comes with power.
The possible benefits that a case-by-case policy would provide are open to much debate, but they are not nonexistent. Historical examples are most easily presentable to bolster this case. Hitler, for example, became a terrible tyrant and no one would deny that his assassination would have made the world a better place, then and now. Similar examples abound: Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot and others. The obvious problem with historical cases is that some opinions -- such as our views on Christopher Columbus's place in history -- are still open to debate. On one hand, the daring adventurer discovered the New World, for which we are all thankful. On the other hand, the profit-hungry conquistador committed genocide against Native American tribes. Would a hypothetical assassination of Columbus be the correct action, according to either ethical or utilitarian decision calculus? Obviously, such grey areas make historical evidence of "bad people" insufficient for a comprehensive debate.
Pertinent examples in the current political arena might do a better job of elucidating the issue. Israel, for instance, adheres to the policy of targeted executions. The Israel debate has been on our political radar for much longer than our own transgressions against the Geneva Convention. For Israel, the decision is made by a very volatile environment: the small country is surrounded by mostly hostile states and anti-Semitic and anti-Israel terrorist organizations. If you sit on less than one percent of the territory of the Middle East, a decision to forego the judicial process in favor of extrajudicial killings is equivalent to the decision to stay alive. We Americans, although stuck in Iraq and still chasing Osama bin Laden, are still farther removed from such immediate hostility, and are therefore able to make more objective and more calculated decisions.
While full prohibition of targeted assassinations in Israel would obviously be illogical, a similar prohibition in our country faces less poignant arguments, and definitely less immediate on-the-ground concerns. Regardless, such a prohibition would still be bad policy. Tying our hands against the world's worst murderers (and there is one born for each decade!) is irresponsible. This would not protect our people.
But how can we ensure that a benevolent world power does not police its way into becoming a merciless hegemon? We do so by voting for good leaders with strong moral convictions and a sound grasp of reality (and hopefully the rhetorical skills to support their decisions). Our nation's direction in this world is represented by the majority of its peoples. As the world's sole superpower, we already exercise our muscle when it comes to relations with states and participation in international structures. We should begin to exercise some responsibility as well.
