In recent years, the United States has faced increasing scrutiny for its use of extrajudicial killings abroad. The Trump administration, in particular, has come under fire for its aggressive approach to targeting and eliminating perceived threats without due process. This controversial practice has sparked a heated debate among journalists and human rights advocates, with many questioning the administration’s rhetoric and rationale for justifying these actions. In a recent discussion, Akela Lacy, Radley Balko, and Nick Turse delved into the issue, shedding light on the dangerous implications of Trump’s “license to kill.”
The panel, hosted by The Intercept, brought together three prominent voices in the field of journalism to discuss the administration’s use of extrajudicial executions. Akela Lacy, a national security reporter for The Intercept, has extensively covered the Trump administration’s foreign policy and its impact on human rights. Radley Balko, an investigative journalist and author, has written extensively on the militarization of American police and the use of lethal force. Nick Turse, an award-winning investigative journalist, has reported on U.S. military operations and the impact of war on civilians.
The discussion began with a focus on the administration’s rhetoric and how it has justified extrajudicial killings abroad. Lacy pointed out that the Trump administration has repeatedly used the term “war on terror” to justify its actions, even though many of the targets are not directly linked to terrorist organizations. This broad and vague definition of the enemy has allowed the administration to carry out targeted killings without any accountability.
Balko added that the administration has also used the concept of “imminent threat” to justify its actions. However, this term has been stretched to the point where it has lost its meaning. Turse echoed this sentiment, stating that the administration’s definition of “imminent threat” is so broad that it could potentially justify extrajudicial killings even within the borders of the United States.
The panelists also discussed the impact of these actions on the rule of law and the erosion of due process. Balko highlighted the fact that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, yet the administration’s actions have completely disregarded this fundamental principle. Turse added that the use of drones and other forms of remote warfare has made it easier for the administration to carry out these killings without any accountability.
The discussion then turned to the possibility of extrajudicial killings being carried out within the United States. Lacy pointed out that the administration has already shown a willingness to use lethal force against American citizens, as seen in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen. Balko warned that this sets a dangerous precedent and could potentially lead to the use of lethal force against American citizens on U.S. soil.
The panelists also discussed the role of the media in holding the administration accountable for its actions. Lacy emphasized the importance of journalists in uncovering the truth and shedding light on the administration’s actions. Balko added that the media has a responsibility to challenge the administration’s rhetoric and hold it accountable for its actions.
In conclusion, the panelists agreed that the Trump administration’s “license to kill” has dangerous implications for human rights and the rule of law. The administration’s broad and vague definitions of the enemy and imminent threat, along with its disregard for due process, have created a dangerous precedent that could potentially lead to extrajudicial killings within the United States. The media has a crucial role to play in holding the administration accountable and ensuring that these actions do not go unchecked. As journalists, it is our responsibility to continue shedding light on these issues and demanding accountability from those in power.
