Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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