Skip to main content

View Diary: The Power to Assassinate a Citizen (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Just to be clear, you're admitting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    that he's advocating rebellion, you just don't think the life of a cartoonist is that big of a deal?

    •  Not where war powers are concerned, no. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pgm 01, happymisanthropy, cai

      That's a criminal matter, not a military one.  Advocating rebellion is a seditious act.  It isn't enough to trigger the use of war powers against an American citizen.

      "Speaking for me only." -Armando

      by JR on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 11:27:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I think we've reached an honest difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        of opinion, because I do think that it's a big deal.

        •  "Big deal" is not the point. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JR, crose

          We have a court system for everything from littering to, yes, treason.  Try the guy.

          My comments may not be used for any purpose without explicit permission.

          by cai on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 11:52:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  contrary to some theory (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            the courts are not the supreme branch of government. The political branches are entrusted with foreign policy and war matters and can act in those without judicial sanction. There is no constitutional protection for those engaged in war against the USA until/unless they are in custody.

            •  Hey, if he was killed on the battlefield (0+ / 0-)

              that would be different.  But we don't bomb Americans because they are overseas and have (allegedly) committed crimes.  We shouldn't, anyway.

              (And I happen not to accept the Bush designation of any place overseas as "the battlefield".)

              My comments may not be used for any purpose without explicit permission.

              by cai on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:23:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  actually Bush wanted the world to be defined as (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SoCalSal, Deep Texan

                the battlefield. The blatantly illegal imprisonment of Padilla who was seized in a US airport was a sign of Bush's effort to bring rule of law to an end.

                However, that does not mean that Yemen is not the battlefield or that a person engaged in military actions in Yemen is in any way entitled to judicial protection while he is not in US custody.

                Just because Bush wanted to illegally designate American soil as battlefield does not mean battlefields are not battlefields.

                •  If all it takes is bombing the shit out of a... (0+ / 0-)

                  place before we call it a battlefield, then I suppose you're right, Mr Awlaki is on a battlefield. Apparently all a President needs to create a Constitution-free zone is to start bombing the shit outta the place. Yea, that's definitely what the Constitution wanted.

                  "And he shall, in times when he has unilaterally decided to unleash a bucketload of firepower on a location, be empowered to target and kill any of his subjects citizens found therein, upon convening a decision-making body whose members have been chosen entirely by him and whose tenures are at his discretion. Further, he shall ensure that the people not be made aware of the criteria used to judge fellow citizens, and that no due-process or injunctive relief be made available to the citizen to be killed."

        •  That's called authoritarianism. (0+ / 0-)

          If being accused of threatening a cartoonist and inspiring a criminal conspiracy can get you summary execution, I don't know what else you want to call it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site