At some point we are going to have a President who has views that are out of the mainstream or, less charitably, views that are off the wall. Names like Palin, Perot and Paul come to mind. So does U.S. Congressman Peter King. Could be someone we don't know about yet.
If that President P_____ decided that your death were in the interest of the United States and ordered it...what then?
According to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Al-Aulaqi v. Obama the question of whether the President may order you killed would not be a matter for the Courts.
So...what do you do if the President has ordered you killed?
Well, it is clear, that whatever you do, you should not go overseas.
"But I am an American!", you might cry.
Nevertheless, "there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is "constitutionally committed to the political branches" and judicially unreviewable". Id. at p.78.
"Overseas, like Yemen or Afghanistan?," you might ask reasonably.
Well, cerainly the President can decide to kill you there. But also possibly in Italy or Germany, England or Canada.
After all, "there are no judicially manageable standards by which courts can endeavor to assess the President's interpretation of military intelligence and his resulting decision -- based on that intelligence -- whether to use military force against a terrorist target overseas." Id. at 70-71. That the "terrorist target" is a U.S. citizen is irrelevant.
"But...I don't belong to any terrorist organizations!" you declare. "Neither I nor any organization I belong to threaten U.S. national security."
That, however, is for the President to determine, unless Congressmen like Peter King get involved. In any event, "[g]iven that courts may not undertake to assess whether a particular organization's alleged terrorist activities threaten national security, it would seem axiomatic that courts must also decline to assess whether a particular individual's alleged terrorist activities threaten national security." Id. at 71.
Of course this is all a somewhat twisted hypothetical with no relationship to the real world. Not even Presidents Palin, Perot or Paul
would execute someone who didn't seem like they were really a dangerous terrorist, a true Al-Queda warrior.
But Republican Congressman Peter King (ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee) wants the Secretary of State to designate Wikileaks as a Foreign Terorrist Organization.
Peter King: Why Wikileaks Terrorist Organization Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, also thinks that the head of Wikileaks is a terrorist.
Are you a Wikileaks supporter? No? What other organization could the President designate as a terrorist organization?
Up to the President, whoever that is.
It won't be Peter King though; because no legislator we haven't heard of can become President in six years.
So you Wikileaks supporters are safe.
We've been engaging for many years now in a process of empowering our President. Gradually at first, and then more quickly we have removed the restraints and cut down the laws that bound this power, always to help achieve a worthy goal to stop the scourge of drugs or protect America from terorrist attack.
Reading this decision I am minded of the words of the play A Man for All Seasons:
"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
Do we want to rely on law and on checks and balances or do we want to rely on the unreviewable good will and good sense of a single politician?
Ultimately, it's your decision.