In recent years, the United States has been embroiled in a heated debate over the use of extrajudicial killings abroad. This controversial practice, which involves the targeted killing of individuals without due process, has been a key component of the Trump administration’s foreign policy. However, as journalists Akela Lacy, Radley Balko, and Nick Turse have pointed out, the administration’s rhetoric and rationale for these killings are deeply troubling – and could have dangerous implications for the rule of law both at home and abroad.
In a recent discussion on The Intercept, Lacy, Balko, and Turse delved into the disturbing trend of extrajudicial executions under the Trump administration. They highlighted the administration’s use of vague and broad justifications, such as the “war on terror” and the “global battlefield,” to justify these killings. This has allowed the administration to bypass traditional legal processes and carry out targeted killings without any accountability.
One of the most concerning aspects of this practice is the lack of transparency and oversight. As Balko points out, the administration has refused to release any information about the individuals who have been killed, making it impossible to assess the legality or morality of these actions. This lack of transparency not only undermines the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but also raises serious questions about the true motivations behind these killings.
Moreover, the administration’s rhetoric surrounding these extrajudicial executions is deeply troubling. As Turse notes, the language used by the administration often dehumanizes the victims and portrays them as “terrorists” or “enemies of the state.” This not only serves to justify the killings, but also creates a dangerous precedent for the use of violence and force against individuals who are deemed to be a threat to the government.
But perhaps the most alarming aspect of this discussion is the possibility that these extrajudicial killings could be carried out within the United States. As Lacy points out, the administration has already shown a willingness to use lethal force against American citizens abroad, such as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki. This raises serious concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the potential for the government to use targeted killings as a tool for suppressing dissent and opposition within the country.
In light of these troubling developments, it is crucial that we as a society take a stand against the use of extrajudicial executions. As Balko argues, it is essential that we hold our government accountable for its actions and demand transparency and oversight in all cases of targeted killings. We must also challenge the administration’s rhetoric and reject the notion that these killings are necessary for our safety and security.
Furthermore, we must recognize that the use of extrajudicial killings not only undermines the rule of law, but also perpetuates a cycle of violence and retaliation. As Turse notes, the administration’s actions have only served to fuel anti-American sentiment and potentially create more enemies. This is a dangerous path that could have disastrous consequences for both the United States and the rest of the world.
In conclusion, the discussion between Lacy, Balko, and Turse sheds light on the disturbing trend of extrajudicial executions under the Trump administration. It is clear that these actions not only undermine the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but also have the potential to create more harm than good. As citizens, it is our responsibility to speak out against these practices and demand accountability from our government. We must not allow the administration to continue to use vague justifications and rhetoric to justify these killings. The future of our democracy and the safety of our citizens depend on it.
