Paper Example on Presidential Management

Introduction

Historically, citizens and residents in the United States of America have lost their lives and properties through violent acts planned and executed by terrorists based within and outside the country's borders. The government including its three arms has always made, interpreted and implemented laws in the attempt to manage the acts and protect the people and their properties under its care (Haimes, 2002). Comprehensively, whenever issues related to terrorism are reported, everyone concerned always look up to one arm of the government for answers and actions and that is the executive of which consists of the president, the vice-president and others functioning in their offices. The president is expected to respond effectively to everything that threatens the lives of the citizens of the US. Hence, the type of reaction by the executive solely depends on the decision-making of the president in office during the time of terror acts.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Understandably, the presidential executive has in many occurrences given orders in response to terrorism of which some of them have been legally followed as laws while others have received criticism from distinctive parties including the other government's arms, the civilians, and other foreign forces. Constitutionally, the orders given may be permissible or impermissible depending on how the critics interpret them; therefore, they either function as processes of law-making or acts out of the executive's jurisdictions (Rossiter, 2017). Over the decades presidential executive decrees have been given concerning the acts by terrorists on the people of the US and of which are still being followed as laws while others have been ignored as mere instructions that were only relevant at the time of declaration.

In the recent few decades, the US presidents have swiftly and resolutely responded to terror threats and attacks within, at and outside the country. In 1993, former President Clinton issued an executive decree ordering the firing of missiles at the Mukhabarat which is the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The warships situated at the Persian Gulf were given the instructions after the president learnt from the FBI, CIA and other secret services that there was a plot to assassinate him; the strike was successfully executed (Kellner, 1995). Arguably, this was an extrajudicial executive command, and it is not constitutionally permissible because the attack was ordered after allegations made by legal investigating officials. Regardless of whether one is within the US boundaries, no one should be killed in cold blood. Firing of missiles on a base occupied by people who most probably were unaware of such attack is against one's natural human rights, and it does not in any way function as law-making. Presumably, it was an executive order made into law; then anyone suspected of having any plans to attack the presidency deserves to die without being given other legal option. Hence, though it was a form of emergency management, the presidential executive order was impermissible, and it is liable to be condemned.

In 1998, former President Clinton gave another executive order after two bombing occurrences in Dar as Salaam and Nairobi where many people lost their lives including an American ambassador and eleven citizens. The decree declared missiles to be fired on Afghan camp belonging to Osama bin Laden and a chemical plant situated in Sudan. According to the president, he gave the command because he had obtained the most convincing evidence that pointed at bin Laden and the plant as the prime suspects of the attacks (Miniter, 2004). Understandably, the US government has the responsibility of safeguarding the lives of its citizens regardless of where they are in the world; hence, the actions of the executive. However, firing missiles means many people around the targeted areas would die of which some of them were innocent. Moreover, the constitution prohibits the killing of innocent persons implying that the command was an extrajudicial decree where a decision was made without an in-depth consultation regarding the consequences. The president ought to have considered another action of emergency management against the suspects such as getting to the prime terrorists behind the attacks. By doing this, would have had less or no impacts on the individuals who were not in any way connected to the bombings yet they lived near the targeted areas otherwise the executive order was constitutionally impermissible.

Conclusion

In conclusion, presidential executive decrees have been issued for many years regarding emergency management, but most of them have been overrated. One of the primary reasons that have led to these extrajudicial actions is because the US president is entitled the liberty to give any decree when it is a case to do with terrorism. He has the full authority to issue any command presumed to be the best when managing the apparent emergency. Hence, extending this authority to at least two parties where a consultation must be involved before a decision is made can significantly allow more time for consideration of the possible consequences of the actions taken. In 2006, a US Judge Audrey B. Collins ruled that some portions of an executive order issued by the former President G. Bush were constitutionally impermissible because they were subjecting some parties to prosecution for financing terrorists Mayer (Ferrer, 2009). Some organizations were being added to the list of terrorism of which is violating one's liberty. Hence, based on this ruling it is evident that some executive orders are illegally executed and they ought to be regulated to ensure the right measures are taken when managing emergencies.

References

Ferrer, M. (2009). Prosecuting extortion victims: how counter-terrorist finance measure Executive Order 13224 is going too far. Journal of Financial Crime, 16(3), 262-288.

Haimes, Y. Y., & Longstaff, T. (2002). The role of risk analysis in the protection of critical infrastructures against terrorism. Risk Analysis, 22(3), 439-444.

Kellner, D. (1995). The US media and the 1993 war against Iraq. The US media and the Middle East: Image and perception, (46), 105.

Miniter, R. (2004). Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. Regnery Publishing.

Percival, R. V. (2001). Presidential Management of the Adminsitrative State: The Not-So-Unitary Executive. Duke LJ, 51, 963.

Rossiter, C. (2017). Constitutional dictatorship: Crisis government in the modern democracies. Routledge.