February 08
Targeted assassinations: A moment of truth for U.S. Mennonites
By Berry FriesenThe leaked Department of Justice “White Paper” purporting to justify targeted killings of United States citizens accused of terrorism creates a moment of truth for American Mennonites.
We have known since 9/11 that our national government claims the authority to use the weapons and tactics of war to pursue those allegedly responsible for the attacks on that day. Even so, the assertions of the 16-page legal brief prepared by the Department of Justice are breathtaking in scope. American citizens anywhere in the world may be killed simply because the president or one of his assistants is convinced they are planning violence “against the United States.” There is no need to disclose the specific accusations, give the accused an opportunity to set the record straight, or involve an impartial third party to keep everyone honest. According to the DOJ, the requirements of the law are met when the President and his advisors decide at one of their “Terror Tuesday” meetings that the accused is guilty. None of this is reviewable by any other authority such as a court of law.
This is the stuff of tyranny. It is what freedom-loving people have been resisting since the days of the pharaohs. It is unprecedented in U.S. history.
The DOJ White Paper assures us this power to kill will be exercised carefully and within the requirements of the Constitution. Thus, a U.S. citizen who is targeted must be “a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or an associated force.” The administration official who issues the order to kill must be “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.” He or she must determine that the targeted citizen “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.” It must be “infeasible” to capture the individual rather than kill him. The entire “operation” to kill must be “conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”
Yet as one reads on, each of these limitations is emptied of substantive meaning. A “senior operational leader” can be anyone who is a member of al-Qaida or “an associated group” who “has recently been involved” in activities posing a threat to the United States. The “informed, high-level official” can be a political appointee whose status is entirely dependent on the president’s approval. The “imminent threat of violent attack” need not be demonstrated by actual evidence that a specific attack has been planned or is about to take place; all the administration needs is to know the individual is or has been involved in planning attacks on U.S. interests. Capture (rather than killing) becomes “infeasible” whenever the host country objects to the insertion of U.S. military force, or whenever it might expose U.S. military personnel to “undue risk.” The requirements of the “law of war” are largely irrelevant because al-Qaida is not a government and the conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaida is not a traditional war. According to the DOJ, the entire world (including the U.S.A.) has become a battlefield on which the U.S. and al-Qaida are engaged.
Now that it is indisputable that our government openly claims the power to kill its citizens and is committed to doing so as part of established policy, we have a choice to make. We can accept this as somehow legitimate (even if highly distasteful) and hope for presidents who will exercise this power wisely. Or we can step into a posture of dissent vis-à-vis our government, not because we doubt the good judgment of the individual in the White House, but because our government claims and is exercising illegitimate power over human life, unfettered by the Constitution, international law or any other form of accountability.
To be sure, there are ways to dodge this choice. Two-kingdom theology provides an out by lumping all governments into a single, undifferentiated group that is authorized to use the sword. Holding our government accountable for who it kills and why isn’t much valued in this way of thinking.
Partisan preference provides another evasion. We may like the current resident of the White House and consider him more restrained in his use of violence than the likely alternative. Shouldn’t we just be thankful the other candidate didn’t win?
Yet another dodge is our smug confidence that U.S. government hit squads target Muslims, not law-abiding Christians like us. We have nothing to fear.
Or we can look full in the face of the chilling reality that our government has begun to openly and brazenly exercise tyrannical powers. We can acknowledge it has embraced lawlessness and will not soon retreat. We can recognize that each President will go further than the last in the exercise of this power to kill. Eventually, if we are faithful to the calling of messiah Jesus, it will reach us or our spiritual brothers and sisters too.
As American Mennonites, our calling is not to fix what has gone so wrong in Washington. Rather, our calling is to witness to the sovereign claims of Messiah Jesus, including his intention to restore all dominions, rulers and powers to their proper roles within creation. This witness must include public dissent from the arrogant claims of the DOJ White Paper. And it should be followed by other actions that demonstrate how gravely we regard this matter. For me, this will include nonpayment of a portion of my income tax, as described by the group 1040 for Peace.
Our government has crossed the line into lawlessness. Do we have the courage to say so?
Berry Friesen is an attorney and a member of East Chestnut Street Mennonite Church in Lancaster, Pa.
Comments
-
In watching the blogosphere and other social media networks... I would say, yes, we do have the courage to say so. There are any number of initiatives and such being done across the country in all sorts of strange ways that are pointing out this atrocious abuse of government power. Look up Ian Ebright and his "From the Sky" film project.
One thing to be cautious of is to assume that folks with the explicit "Mennonite" name are the ones doing the acting. Ian isn't Mennonite. Do we then try to put ourselves forward and make our own name known? Or do we go and back those projects and initiatives that others are already doing and join our voices with theirs?
-
Ahhhh, so now the MCUSA has its eyes opened to the tyranny of this president and his administration? Where have you been? As abortion has been expanded? As the rights of religious freedom have been trampled? I've watched as my denomination has supported and promoted this same tyranny from its inception while at the same time I've never stopped speaking against it and I never will.
-
Vicki, I think a church group can approve of some aspects of a public administration (an interest in the poor, a sense of justice for the oppressed, etc) and still disagree and disapprove of other aspects. Just because MCUSA agrees with the current administration on the priority of making sure sick people have care does not necessarily mean that MCUSA agrees with all of HOW that is done... or that MCUSA agrees with ALL policies of the same administration.
I can praise my daughter for doing well on her flute recital and approve of her practice habits and turn around and discipline her for her attitude towards her little sister. Approval of one act does not imply approval of all acts.
-
I don't think we do have the courage, based upon the intellectual Mennonite communities love of the current White House occupant.
I have contended, and still do, that Libertarian philosophy, the political philosophy at root of the much maligned tea party movement, is the political relative of Anabaptist spiritual thought. The current imperial presidency, no matter the occupant, is in no way compatible with our beliefs or those of our fore-bearers.
-
Ah, what BJW said.
And Robert, Everance has dropped it's small individual health care plans. (remember how Obama promised that this would NEVER happen) How does that square with your "priority of making sure sick people have care"? The IRS is now costing the Obamacare Bronze care plan (cheapest plan) at over $20,000 for a family. That's beyond what I can afford.
George W. Bush. Miss me yet?
-
This seems to be the part where this discussion breaks down into partisan politics. There needs to be a way to be a prophetic voice to our nation but it must be done outside of the political 2 party system. Our voices become muted and we become just another tool in the hands of the political machine supporting someone else's agenda. My eyes have been open for the last 2 presidents now. We should speak. Yes. But not out of our Christianized political persuasions. We should speak from the conviction of Christ and from the outside in.
-
Amos asks the question: can two walk together except they be agreed? The Catholic church has learned a very painful lesson in aligning itself with ones whose agendas are contrary to God's will just because they liked "some aspects" of their policies. When you get into bed with vipers you can't expect to not get bitten. When a president dictates that no care be given to a child born alive through abortion but instead to be left to die then does it really matter that you like their "sense of justice for the oppressed"? Where is the justice for that dying baby? Wake up church...your syncretism is going to be your downfall. Be assured that lukewarm is heaved up and out.
-
Vickie, thanks for standing tall.
-
Vicki, sorry for the mispelling of your name.
-
Dale, I usually applaud your commitment to conservative values, a right interpretation of Scirpture, and more. Please hold fast to these, and please continue to speak and write. There is one thing that I would like to speak to, however, something that has been said by people near where I live. I do not want to put words in your mouth, so correct anything I might say wrong. Spokesmen for the right to bear arms around here say that the problem is not guns, and say or imply that the problem is corrupted human nature. I think we need to see what needs to be addressed, and who needs to address what. If someone has a dislike for another person, or other people, he can point his finger and say "bang - bang," and nothing will happen (pardon the simplicity of the illustration). But if he is permitted to have an INSTRUMENTN OF DEATH in his hands, he can kill many, many people. We cannot say that the problem is not guns, but rather that the problem is human nature. Government will never change human nature - that is not the job of human government. The job of human government is to protect its citizens. It has the right to punish the wrongdoer. Granted that owning a gun in and of itself is not a wrong. But I think the government can use its power to keep such things as AK-47s out of the hands of everyday people. Now, regarding the job of changing human nature: that job is up to the church working as co-workers with God. Our job is to take the gospel of salvation from sin, and its controlling power, to people who do not have that message. We need to be clear as to what the gospel message is - that Christ died on a cross as a sacrifice to forgive people for their sins upon their placing of faith in him as the sufficient and only sufficient sacrifice to do that. An entailment of such faith is a changed life as people are brought into relation with Jesus Christ. I am afraid that the church is, to too great an extent, not proclaiming that message. I also am afraid that people in the church are trying to reword and reformulate the gospel message. We must be clear on what we are to do, be clear on what our message is, and proclaim that message.
-
Since the comment was addressed directly to me, I'll respond.
Herb, there is a difference between agreeing with a priority for healthcare for the poor and disadvantaged and supporting the means by which that priority is enacted. I, personally, have some problems with a government run health-care system, details of which I will not engage here. But, much like Paul in Athens, just because we disagree with the means, does not mean we cannot dialogue with folks and say, "You have some good ideas. You're on the right track. Let's talk about it."
In other words, I agree with the sentiment and priority. I disagree with the means by which it is done. While some, even those in power, may see that the two are inseparable, I do not.
Personally, I'm with Joe Troyer's sentiments above. Partisan politics have no place in the body of Christ called as a prophetic voice to the nations. We can speak without having to engage in the same methods as the political machine and we should be the first to act as the Kingdom of God and not expect those "outside" to see the same truth of Christ.
-
Joe Troyer writes, "My eyes have been open for the last 2 presidents now." That describes me too.
Are there more like us out there? Many more?
If so, then this is a special moment in history: a grave moral issue presents itself within a context where the threat can not be primarily ascribed to one major political party or the other. They are both equally culpable.
This provides a unique opportunity for the church to speak prophetically because it can do so without alienating partisans within its membership.
For more on the convergence of conservatives and liberals in support of tyrannical polical power in the hands of the President, goggle "Glenn Greenwald" and "DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks."
Comment on the blog post Targeted assassinations: A moment of truth for U.S. Mennonites
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download