31 May 12
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
After 9/11 the Bush administration pretty much defined conspiratorial terrorism as war, regardless of whether a national entity was involved. It also held Nations responsible for acts of people and organizations within their borders.
Obama has stumbled into a position somewhere between that of Clinton and Bush, where he has the best of both worlds.
31 May 12
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.
By a declaration of war, Congress at Roosevelt's behest ordered many more deaths than a single terrorist aligned with Al Queda.
31 May 12
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.
Well yeh, because he admitted, no bragged of carrying out several acts of war.
"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."
This guy is accused of a criminal act against the laws of Maryland, not of acts of war.
Constitutionally, even the acts of war face the necessity of the President asking Congress for a Declaration of War, a process ignored repeatedly by President's from Truman forward.
31 May 12
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.
Many people are arguing that we are very often too anxious to share our methods for the sake of transparency, endangering both our methods and operatives.
01 Jun 12
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.
01 Jun 12
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.