Combating Domestic Terrorism

Combating Domestic Terrorism The American criminal justice system is based on the constitutional principle of due process. According to this principle envisioned in both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, the state should not deprive a person of his life, his property, or his personal liberty unless the government has subjected him to the due process of the law. However, the increase in the incidences of terrorism, in particular, domestic terrorism, has made the government adopt a different stance about the ethics and acceptability of killing suspected domestic terrorists before the government charges them in court. An analysis of this issue reveals that it is an ethically contentious issue, in which both sides of the debate raise legitimate concerns about the ethical acceptability, or lack of, for the practice. There are several ethical issues that both sides raise in this debate. Each of the sides is convinced that their position is the moral one, while the other side refutes this. First, the proponents of the practice argue that a suspected terrorist is a combatant involved in asymmetrical warfare against the USA. Thus, the USA is justified in killing such people just as enemy combatants can die in a war. Secondly, many have argued that it is more ethical to target a particular proven terrorist rather than engage in a confrontation that would result in the deaths of dozens or even thousands of civilians. The third argument for this explains the actions of the USA as an act of self-defense. In the use of force, a country must always ensure that it has a just cause. In this case, the proponents of the targeted killing argue that the prevention of deaths of the American civilians by assassinating a person likely to kill the civilians is ethical. On the other hand, the opponents of this process find it morally reprehensible, unconstitutional, and against international law. In the first place, the targeted killing is against the principle of due process as the state takes the life of a suspected terrorist without according to him/her the benefit of the court process. Not only is this unethical to kill a person before he/she has the chance to defend themselves but also unconstitutional, according to the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, some strikes have resulted in the death of dozens of innocent civilians with no warning that there was going to be a targeted killing. Many argue that is morally reprehensible. Furthermore, many legal ethicists have argued that continued targeted killing could legitimize the targeted killing by other nations, and this could lead to chaos. Moreover, the USA could lose its moral high ground concerning due process and human rights if this practice continues. This slippery slope argument also alleges that such practices will establish a dangerous precedent on the US soil. For instance, a future president might further expand the political definition of terrorists to include his domestic opponents. As is apparent, the ethical acceptability of targeted killings, especially regarding domestic terrorists, is a contentious issue. Its proponents argue that the terrorists are involved in an asymmetrical war against the USA. Furthermore, since terrorists target civilians, it is only more ethical to kill them first before they kill civilians. Moreover, it also appears more moral to target a terrorist rather than engage in a confrontation that could harm civilians. On the other hand, the opponents of the practice argue that not only it is illegal but also unethical as it breaches the due process principle. It can lead to the harm of uninvolved innocent civilians and can result in the legitimization of violence and spiral out of control.