Do the ends justify the means? Has Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli come back into fashion?

Do the ends justify the means? Should U.S. citizens condone the assassination of persons suspected of criminal or terrorist activities instead of resorting to the traditional judicial notion that persons are innocent until proven guilty? That disturbing question arises in the wake of the killing in Yemen of Anwar Aal-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and Islamic cleric born in New Mexico.

President Barack Obama appeared to attempt to justify the assassination: "he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda."

However, in the U.S. judicial system persons accused of criminal acts are sought out, arrested and brought to trial; they are not assassinated. Can an assassination be justified in place of judicial process if the evidence clearly indicates the guilt of the accused, or in view of the belief that killing him could save innocent lives?

Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, points out that Aal-Awlaki “had never been indicted for a crime here (in the U.S.), much less convicted of one, much less sentenced to death. Still, the President rubbed him out.”

The mass media filtered information obviously from government sources indicating that Aal-Awlaki was a high ranking member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and likewise suggested he was involved in the September 11 bombing attack of the Twin Towers. But does that give President Obama the right to summarily execute a man who furthermore was a U.S. citizen?

An argument sometimes presented to back up actions such as that against Aal-Awlaki maintains that the U.S. is at war with Al Qaeda, a strange war between a nation and a political-religious organization using terrorist tactics. True. In wars the rules of civilian justice are blasted to smithereens. But even during wartime armies are subject to certain ethical limitations, such as taking prisoners rather than resorting to mass executions—although it is clear that that rule has often been broken.

If the U.S. and its Western allies are genuinely concerned about democracy and human rights why is it that they so often resort to actions which seem to contradict those notions? The answer apparently has to do with the notion commonly held in many echelons of power that if the ends are just, the means are of secondary importance.

That was essentially the argument used to justify the atomic bombings of Japan during the Second World War: the just end was alleged to be a prompt end to the war, while the means used involved mass destruction.

A similar argument was used during the Cold War to explain U.S. interventions in third world countries or the support or encouragement of rightwing anti-communist military coups, such as those in Chile and Argentina, or in the prolonged war in Vietnam. That was also the reasoning that led the Pentagon to develop anti-insurgency policies including training U.S. and "friendly" foreign military officers in techniques such as hard fisted interragation tactics, the abuse of prisoners, psychological warfare and other practices clearly in violation of civilian notions of justice.

The argument was simple: communism or political systems not considered in the main stream had to be stopped, the end justified the means, even though in the process methods contrary to justice and human rights had to be employed.

The American Civil Liberties Union (CLU), which, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, represented Al-Awlaki’s father last year in an attempt to block his assassination, denounced the assassination of Aal-Awlaki and other such actions:

"The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” according to ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer. “This is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government’s authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President – any President – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."

There is no provision in the U.S. constitution enabling the President with authority to summarily execute a citizen, even though he is considered an enemy of the state. Yet numerous actions have historically been taken by the executive power which, via the CIA or other clock and dagger agencies, contradict that constitutional stipulation.

In his article Rothschild points out that the Obama administration’s Justice Department “went into court last year to make the claim that no judge in the entire United States has the right to oversee the President’s assassination policy.”

The question remains: do the ends justify the means? In times of war or revolution one might likewise raise a similar query: if unjust means are used to win, what are the consequences regarding the posibility of insuring democracy and civil rights for future generations ? Just as a means of illustration we might consider the following:

For centuries Europe and the U.S. have justified repressive actions in Africa and Latin America  on the basis of acting in the betterment of their own citizens.

--Africans, considered to be inferior beings, were enslaved to produce wealth for plantation owners. When the slave system was no longer convenient, slavery was abandoned. Haiti was the first country to declare the end of slavery, yet it has frequently been invaded by foreign powers in the name of law and order. In fact, it is now undergoing a prolonged occupation--this time by United Nations troops.

--Indigenous children were separated from their mothers in Australia under the argument that they could be taught the religion and the "civilized" customs of the white immigrants, who had invaded the country and taken  power.

--The 1898 war against Spanish colonies in Cuba and the Philippines were justified with the argument that a U.S. ship had been attacked in Habana harbor by islanders—later the U.S. Navy revealed that the explosion was caused by a fire in the ship’s boiler room.

--Numerous military coups in Latin America were backed or applauded by Washington in the view that authoritarian regimes were needed to prevent communism from gaining a foothold in the area. These regimes applied gross violations of human rights, such as torture, kidnappings, and the disappearance of persons opposed to the dictatorships.

--Iraq, the world’s number two oil producer, was invaded by the Bush Administration on the excuse that Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction—although those weapons were never discovered.

--U.S. and NATO forces have carried out massive bombardments on the side of anti-government insurgents in Libia. The pretext? Blatant abuses of human rights carried out by the 41 year dictatorship of Maummar Gaddafi. It remains to be seen if that action in favor of one side of a civilian war will bring about respect for human rights or if it will end up being but a veneer to assure Western influence in the country.

The list is long. The question remains: is there no alternative to the notion that unjust means can assure just ends?