Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  We just don't support the right of terrorists (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seanwright

    to operate with impunity.

    We also believe in the rule of law, not the rule of what we want the law to be.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 05:38:21 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And who's a terrorist? (7+ / 0-)

      Anyone you decide might be?

      Count me not entirely re-assured.

    •  Terrorist? What proof do you have that awlaki, a (9+ / 0-)

      citizen, is a terrorist?

    •  Yes because it's a binary choice (7+ / 0-)

      assassinate people without due process, or allow them to operate with impunity and without interference.

      Now passing 1,000 Choi Units into the Obama administration.

      by Scott Wooledge on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 06:26:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In this case, yes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        seanwright

        That option has to be on the table.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 07:39:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is on the table (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, Akire, JesseCW

          But not without judicial review to assure that standards are followed. The President should not have authority without review.

          "It's better to lose fighting the right fight, than to lose fighting the wrong fight." Rev. Jesse Jackson 12/07/2010 -RE: tax cuts for the rich

          by ZhenRen on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 07:42:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Target selection in a military conflict (0+ / 0-)

            is not a justiciable matter.  It is committed to the political branches and is beyond the competence of courts to decide.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 09:16:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You just jumped to the right of Rummy. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, Akire

              Good show.

              Sherrod Brown "We would have gotten Unemployment benefits extended anyway".

              by JesseCW on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 09:59:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I'm stating the law as upheld by every (0+ / 0-)

                federal court that has had an opportunity to weigh on it.

                No court has ever or will ever declare jurisdiction over target selectio in a military conflict taking place under an authorization from Congress.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 10:24:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  What military conflict? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo

              Next you're gonna declare that anywhere the President says is a battlefield, is one.

              The courts rejected your view during the Civil War when Lincoln suggested it, you crazy right-winger.

              Even on a battlefield, assassination orders are and always have been a justiciable matter.  But thanks for showing us that there are deranged right-wing pro-dictatorship goons even on DailyKos.

              Unless you're trying to establish a false history so you can go undercover in a future fascist administration, in which case good show.  ;-)

              Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

              by neroden on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 10:07:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lots of ranting and drooling, no links. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                seanwright

                AUMF of 2001 explicitly authorizes lethal force against members of AQ.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 10:27:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But what if membership in AQ is mistaken? (0+ / 0-)

                  If we can just label a person as an enemy, why can't I be labeled an enemy, and put on a hit list?

                  No, if we allow the executive branch sole authority over this, they can circumvent the constitutional protections too easily by merely designating anyone they choose to be someone we're at war with. That's wrong. Not buying your rationale. My god, what totalitarian authoritarianism.

                  "It's better to lose fighting the right fight, than to lose fighting the wrong fight." Rev. Jesse Jackson 12/07/2010 -RE: tax cuts for the rich

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 11:06:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Congress granted the executive this authority. (0+ / 0-)

                    Cops shoot innocent people every week, and courts convict the innocent every day.
                    I do think that the process for determining such targets should be more transparent, but I am not worried about the precedent because this is such an unusual case on so many levels that it is Sui generis.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 04:49:07 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  This isn't about impunity (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Akire

      This is about applying the rule of law.  There has been no legal decision that this man has violated any law.  It's called due process, and it's in the constitution.

      •  Your crowd only supports the rule of (0+ / 0-)

        what you imagine the law to be, not rule of law per se.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 07:37:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I support a little document (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, JVolvo, Akire, ZhenRen

          called the Constitution of the United States, and its Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that no citizen of the United States will be deprived of life without due process of law.  The Constitution is the basis of the United State's federal legal system, which the executive branch is sworn to uphold.

        •  And that standard allows (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo, Akire

          the rape, torture and murder of children to get information from their parents.

          So what's the penalty for getting it wrong, because anyone expecting a 100% success rate in terms of putting only actual terrorists to death, with no judicial oversight of any type, is aggressively naive and far too trusting of unchecked, executive power.

          Probably best not to lecture others about the Constitution if you're blatantly ignoring it yourself.

          When it comes to Texas Politics, "Stupid" Plays Very Well

          by KingCranky on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 08:16:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Due process does not apply to armed (0+ / 0-)

            conflict.   It is beyond the jurisdiction of courts.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 09:03:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He is not involved in armed conflict.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mochajava13

              He's peacefully sleeping in some house.

              So what's your point, lunatic right-winger?

              Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

              by neroden on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 10:09:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He is an operational planner in the (0+ / 0-)

                leadership of AQ, which is legally on a state of armed conflict with the US.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 10:29:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                  What happens when the Govt. gets it wrong?

                  What sanctions apply in those cases?

                  Because nobody could be stupid enough to think the Feds would get this kind of a claim right 100% of the time.

                  And last I checked, there's been no legal finding regarding al-Awlaqi, so what independently-verifiable "proof" is there for your claim, keeping in mind that false confessions are known to happen

                  When it comes to Texas Politics, "Stupid" Plays Very Well

                  by KingCranky on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 05:07:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Prove that he is an operational planner (0+ / 0-)

                  that is an assertion.  He is hiding in a nation that we are not at war with.  Charge him and ask for an extradition to try him.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site