Skip to main content

View Diary: Targeted Killing: "A Unique and Extraordinary Case" (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's not accurate. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque, VClib

    The case at hand involves drone strikes in lawless regions of Yemen.  The attacks on Al Awlaki are every bit as justified as the attacks on any other terrorist leader targeted in Pakistan or Yemen.  Now, whether those attacks are in accordance with international law and standards is a very debatable proposition, but it really is a "political question" meaning a question to be worked out among world leaders, rather than a legal quesion for the Supreme Court.

    "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

    by seanwright on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:25:51 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Which world leaders should work this out? (8+ / 0-)

          I'm pretty sure that targetted assassination would be voted down, if anyone dared to bring it to the United Nations Security Council, or any other group presuming to follow the rule of law. Given that it really is the Congress's responsibilty to declare war. there is a clear question of whether we're deferring way the hell too much to the President's role as Commander-in-Chief as to how the war should be conducted.
          Given that, as I understand it,  extrajudicial assassination is in violation of several treaties having the full force of law in the US, it seems perfectly appropriate for the courts to consider whether the President is exceeding his legal authority. If the Predator drone strikes in Yemen are legal, how about in Mexico? How about "shoot-on-sight" authority for known drug kingpins on the streets of American cities?

      -5.12, -5.23

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:17:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not just drone attacks (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Akire, ER Doc

      He's on a capture or kill list; how he's killed is irrelevant.  The legal attack is about the fact that a US citizen is on a targeted assassination list in the first place.

      This isn't a political question; this is a due process, and therefore a constitutional, question.    Main question is, or at least should be, is the procedure that he has received through the executive branch sufficient to meet due process requirements?  Since he has not been given any opportunity to see any of the evidence against him, the answer should be no.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site