31 May '12 20:28>
Originally posted by SleepyguyI hereby officially denounce it!!! ðŸ˜
I agree. I could probably find a clip of Ron Paul denouncing it, but I think whodey should get the pleasure of doing that.
Now back to the debates.
Originally posted by SleepyguyThis seems another instance where some view certain acts as criminal (thereby getting the right of due process), or where others view the same events as acts of war.
There was an interesting article in the NY Times recently about the Obama administration's tactic of killing terrorists with drone strikes.
The excerpt below discusses the question of whether it was OK for Obama to order the death of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. The part in bold is the subject for debate. Can due process really be satisfied by in ...[text shortened]... /www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Originally posted by PsychoPawnObviously, the attack on Pearl Harbor could not be treated as a crime. Hardly practical to go round up a Japanese naval group and the admiral to put them on trial.
If the constitutional requirement for due process means that Obama (or anyone) can just have a closed meeting with no transparency and no independent review then the term due process becomes completely meaningless. It essentially becomes "the president had a process of thinking about it" - that is meaningless.
Civil liberties has probably been the wea ...[text shortened]... are a precious few congressmen and senators who actually are willing to make an issue of it.
Originally posted by sh76"Most of us agree that it was okay for the US to kill OBL."
It's a tough line to draw, but it does have to be drawn.
Most of us agree that it was okay for the US to kill OBL.
Most of us would also agree that it would not be okay to kill an alleged drug dealer in Baltimore without an arrest or trial.
Where is the line drawn? Well, somewhere in between. Is it a tough call? Sure. You need to deal with it on a case ...[text shortened]... jurisdiction a pass." Well, you can do that, I suppose. But it's not a very good idea.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnIt is indeed a slippery slope, due to the fact that even given the stipulations I have made regarding the difference between acts of war, and generic criminal acts, there is little or nothing preventing a President from unilaterally declaring anyone a terrorist or war criminal, and declaring the evidence classified.
"1) Substantial evidence exists that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has planned the killing of US civilians.
2) The person cannot reasonably be expected to be captured and brought to justice in the US "
OK...
1) Who verifies that this decision is not made based on a whim or flimsy evidence? How is it actually determined that the ...[text shortened]... roof beyond a reasonable doubt and can be justified with essentially the same arguments.
Originally posted by sh76Are you serious? An indictment might not be "the same as a conviction" but it is a finding by a group of citizens that there exists sufficient evidence to bring a person to trial. This is a bit more meaningful than just letting the President decides who lives or dies.
It's a tough line to draw, but it does have to be drawn.
Most of us agree that it was okay for the US to kill OBL.
Most of us would also agree that it would not be okay to kill an alleged drug dealer in Baltimore without an arrest or trial.
Where is the line drawn? Well, somewhere in between. Is it a tough call? Sure. You need to deal with it on a case ...[text shortened]... jurisdiction a pass." Well, you can do that, I suppose. But it's not a very good idea.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf he were indicted, would that be sufficient in your eyes to allow the President to order that he be taken out?
Are you serious? An indictment might not be "the same as a conviction" but it is a finding by a group of citizens that there exists sufficient evidence to bring a person to trial. This is a bit more meaningful than just letting the President decides who lives or dies.