Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  It's relevant to the argument concerning... (0+ / 0-)

    ...whether war powers may be limited differently depending on the citizenship of the enemy, an assumption you discounted earlier.

    And, again, Hamdi roundly rejects the idea that a nation may be considered as a whole a battlefield if part of it is--in that case, the Court rejected the idea that even Afghanistan could be considered entirely a battlefield.  How you can say that what wouldn't apply to Afghanistan (where there is a clear mandate for the use of military force) would apply to Yemen (without a clear mandate) is, to say the least, confusing.  If there's fighting in New York, San Francisco isn't a de facto battlefield.  That much is pretty clear from Hamdi.

    Saying there's an extant hot war in a country like Yemen because A-Q might be there is like saying there's an extant hot war in the US every time we arrest a terror suspect here.  It just doesn't fly.  There are no combat troops on the ground, there's no occupation, there are no regular military turns the phrase "hot war" into something essentially meaningless.

    Lastly, re: the piracy argument: that seems beside the point, since Congress authorized action against the state that harbored the corsairs.

    "Speaking for me only." -Armando

    by JR on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 05:00:49 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There is a war extant in Yemen, just not with US (0+ / 0-)

      troops (officially). (Note this is not simply a technical issue, but also impacts the practicality of restricting operations to police/capture.  The 'Blackhawk' down situation.)

      As for Hamdi, the whole pt was habeas, which requires the claimant already be in custody, because they are challenging their continued custody. Being in custody is the essential fact. Thus, it is simply inapplicable to this situation. It also demonstrates the difference in a court's ability to fashion and enforce a remedy: a court can order the US to release a habeas claimant, an altogether different thing.

      •  This is a tangent, but... (0+ / 0-)

        ...detaining a combatant is inherently related to war powers.  The Court placed a limit on those powers vis a vis a citizen.  I make no point beyond that.

        "Speaking for me only." -Armando

        by JR on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:46:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site