Skip to main content

View Diary: Was Al-Awlaki A Citizen When He Was Killed? (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "A rose by any other name..." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    denise b

    First, he wasn't charged with anything when the President put him on a kill list and signed a standing kill order.

    Second, dress it up how you like, he was accused of making war against the United States. That was the justification behind his assassination. The reason the definition of what constitutes treason is right there in the Constitution is to prevent some administration or Congress from claiming that they're not actually claiming someone committed treason per se, but some new, inventive crime.

    Let's call it "unmutuality." (I love "The Prisoner.")

    Let's assume that, one day, the federal government declared the crime of "unmutuality" would consist of the same elements as treason, but, since it isn't treason ("it's unmutuality!") they could punish entire families (or, in constitutional terms, "work corruption of blood"). After all, that punishment is specifically banned for treason, but not for unmutuality. So what's the problem?

    Trying to weasel out of observing the Constitution isn't cool. Especially when the goal is to be able to extrajudicially kill citizens.

    "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

    by JR on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:13:15 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site