Skip to main content

View Diary: Iowa anti-abortion radical: 'If someone would shoot the new abortionists' (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not so sure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    At first I'd thought that in fact it wasn't a right, but ultimately, the fifth amendment guarantees no deprivation of life shall occur without due process of law.  Where the rubber meets the road of course is whether a secret kill order really meets the applicable due process.  I suppose that under the Bush/Obama view, during wartime, that's all the process one is due.  Like you, I'd be more comfortable with something more akin to a warrant, whether to judge or Congress that there is some showing of the evidence that the President is correct. Making that showing does provide a useful check in that it makes the executive at least have evidence.

    I'd like to think that Con Law Prof. Obama sees the value in bringing terror suspects before civilian courts.  Maybe I shouldn't, though!

    Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

    by Mindful Nature on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 03:05:51 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  the due process clause (0+ / 0-)

      doesn't apply to most people covered by the AUMF.  It applies to some, to be sure, but then the question then turns on the relationship between due process and judicial process.  In circumstances where judicial process isn't possible, the internal deliberation arguably satisfies both the statutory obligation and the 5th Amendment at once.  In circumstances where that caveat doesn't apply, like a dude hiding in a boat in the Boston suburbs, the power for a secret kill order doesn't derogate existing criminal statutes.  All things being equal, I have trust in Obama not to abuse the power, but the Constitutional minimum is very often short of desirable policy.  That doesn't require second guessing decisions made in the absence of tighter statutory oversight, and the fact that the drone program is being turned over to the DOD, away from CIA and select committee oversight is at least a decent step.  

      I signed up to take a class with Prof. Obama, but he went and won the 2004 Senate Primary :)  My guess is he'd have a lot of different views if he wouldn't be the one having to bear the responsibility if he didn't act and there was another 9/11.  Even still, current policy has to fit the contours of the law, and this does but barely.  The only real decision I'd strongly question is the reversal on KSM being tried in the Southern District, but I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they worry a conviction might not stick because of all of Bush's waterboarding.  I had hoped that a trial would serve the public purpose of "truth and reconciliation" on that issue, without the political risk from indicting prominent republicans and avoiding the legal questions of proving specific intent or having to put up with jury nullification; but you do need a way to find KSM guilty or else it looks bad when you don't let him go.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 04:51:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site