Trending
Editor, News-Register:
After the decision in Trump v. United States, I have seen a number of people comment that now a president could order the United States military to kill a specific individual. This statement has been expressed with some horror about that possibility. I understand that. I believe, and believe my fellow citizens believe, that murder is generally wrong and that human life is sacred.
However, let me point out that recent history establishes that presidents have authorized the killing of specific people. President Obama ordered Seal Team Six to conduct a covert operation in a foreign country and take Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. That individual was killed and his body disposed of at sea.
President Trump authorized the killing of Iranian General Quasem Soleimani, a person identified as being involved in what the United States describes as terrorist acts. Organized protests are periodically made in Iran.
President Biden authorized a drone strike that lead to the death of Auman al-Zawahiri.
Strictly speaking, none of these actions were actions taken in time of war. There is no current declaration of war that would legally authorize any of these killings. Despite that, American presidents have asserted that each of these acts were justifiable acts of national self-defense.
These examples demonstrate that American presidents have the ability to cause the deaths of specific individuals around the globe. Moreover, American presidents have, on some occasions, used that ability to have the United States military specific people. This is not a mere possibility.
It has become a fact of history.
Should any former president face a criminal trial for these decisions? Absent the ruling in Trump v. United States, most American would have said, "no."
The recent decision makes clear that the legal answer is firmly "no."
Rightly or wrongly, presidents have this power. We undoubtedly expect it to be used sparingly. We expect it only to be used for our mutual benefit. But some decisions are more difficult than others. Intentionally killing someone should be a hard decision.
There is a chance that a decision such as this could be erroneously made. I don't assert that any of these were erroneously made. But as a lawyer, I know someone might.
I know that our view of what was lawful does evolve over time. Views on these killings might evolve, too. But should an American president ever be concerned that in taking these actions, a criminal sanction might be imposed? That answer must be "no."
Feel free to consider this case however you might like. But when you do so, keep these examples in mind.
Martin P. Sheehan, Esq.
Wheeling