Messi will win the World Cup.

"Let the guy go" probably wasn't the best choice of words. I'm saying if we allow him to proceed in killing people when the threat is imminent - such as a sniper from a rooftop witnessing him pulling out the detonation device on a suicide vest - then we are sacrificing the life and liberty of citizens who are not actively combating the United States. That isn't really a situation where you can afford regular due process under the law.

The portion you quoted with only 2 options is operating under the assumption that he is an imminent threat and there is no other way to save those people.

The bottom line here is that the authorization to "assassinate" someone(which merely means a surprise attack, something which could be executed under circumstances of imminent threat) doesn't really neglect due process. It's not an "order" to kill someone, it's authorization to use that type of force. Some might suggest that under some circumstances they mean the same thing, but that's an assumption in this case and it seems faulty to jump to that conclusion. We don't know what Obama specifically told the CIA to do. I highly, highly doubt we'll see any bloody corpses pop up on 7th Avenue unless the guy is pulling a life-threatening stunt like that.

Then obviously we must declare war on Argentina and declare him an enemy combatant.

Real Madrid tried to "assassinate" him this weekend and failed miserably.

I'm not sure why enemy combatants has entered this discussion. Are we using the Bush/Cheney abuse of power as the new baseline on how to treat US citizens? This was about how it's inherently, and oh so obviously, wrong to order, or even allow, the deliberate, targeted murder of a US citizen without due process.

I'm having a hard time even getting motivated to participate. It's such a brain dead simple concept. Grey area doesn't work in the legal system because without an equal foundation for all US citizens to stand on, the whole system becomes meaningless and subjective. You can't have one system of justice for everyone, then a separate, secret system subject only to the governments discretion, without oversight. How is that not just COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS?

Agreed with Jox on this count.

You're just doing exactly what I said before...arguing from your gut, Joxur, and trying to make "plain sense" declarations without really examining anything.

There's plenty of gray areas here. I'm sorry that seems to be a foreign concept to you, but even in simple domestic law there's gray areas, compromises, and the like. If everything were so cut and dry and black and white as you seem to think it is, we wouldn't have a ton of laws and regulations...we'd just have a business card that says, "Don't do bad stuff."

I feel very dirty saying this, but I am with Joxur on this, assuming this article is accurate.

This bothers me, and I'm sorry that I don't agree with you on this one, Bovinity.

That's ok, Fribur. I still luv you IRL.

Missed this part of Sarissa's quote:



Does it really need to be between two nations to be a war? I guess I'm unconvinced of this, especially in this day and age. Every reference in bills and legislation relating to Al Qaeda suggests that we are at war with them. Al Qaeda also more directly declared war on us.

I'm inclined to agree that the War on Drugs was a little loose, partly because it's a little hard to label everyone that decides to take or deal a simple substance(some which can be taken perfectly responsibly by many people) as an enemy. The War on Terror dare I say is a little more specific, with direct attacks/battles and a rather coherent list of organizations that are primarily going out of their way to harm innocents. With the forerunning organization being Al Qaeda, I still fail to see why this can't be treated in the broader sense with the same definition of war that we use in nation on nation conflicts.

We can argue that, sure. But the other nation has to accept it. There's no treaty that covers black operations like smoking some guy wherever we find him. Military needs host's permission to do peacetime stuff.

So we're working with Afghanistan/Iraq, and if their government asked us to leave tomorrow we would. Even if 'bad guys' take hold of the country again.

That seems like a very naive viewpoint, Sarissa. We forcibly injected ourselves (or just plain invaded and overthrew the government, in the case of Iraq...but it still wasn't a "war", heh. Guess that meant there were no "battlefields", either?) into these nations, you really think we're there as "super nice friendly people" who'll just get up and leave if we think they don't like us anymore?

That Karzai nutjob talks about joining the Taliban if we don't stop "pressuring" him, even though we basically flew in, kicked the crap out of the people we didn't like, put him "in charge" and it's our joint coalition forces that are basically propping his authority up...but sure, we're just there as a "peacekeeping" operation and we'll leave whenever Afghanistan wants. Riiiight.

Eh? It was a war, which was declared over by the Commander in Chief. If it's to be called something it is indeed a peacekeeping and stabilization operation. That's what's briefed when going to/from either location. And yes, we absolutely will leave if they tell us to. Or we will declare war on them again and stay. They're sovereign nations and those are our best options. Otherwise staying against their will won't play very well PR-wise. Then we really will be hostile occupiers and those who haven't joined the crazed derkas will for sure by then.

If a nation's recognized government doesn't want you there, and doesn't want you to bomb bad guys there, short of declaring war on them there's not a lot to be done. Unless we can sneak in as blue helmets through the UN. Look at Pakistan for instance. We're walking on eggshells about drone missions over a region of their country they barely control and whose residents they barely care about.

Btw, Karzai's brother got the non-nut genes and runs an awesome restaurant in Baltimore.

You'll have to refresh my memory on when there was a Declaration of War and when it was declared over.

Agreed.

oh crap, posted too fast.

I wanted to just add that regardless of what "grey areas" you think you can find, Bovinity, the Constitution trumps them all and it is very clear on what the government is barred from doing to citizens.

Yet, somehow the Constitution is being trumped by the very topic of this entire thread so your point is moot.

politicians have been blowing their noses with the constitution for at least 30 years.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

They should go back to being more CIA like.

I'd say it's more like everyone and their dog has worn it to tatters by constantly waving it at their opponents, claiming it supports their side.

For example, it's interesting how it's "SO OBVIOUS" to some people here, and yet courts and constitutional scholars have yet to come to anything resembling a consensus on it.



You can't see any gray areas, or at least areas that aren't entirely clear? With a loosely defined enemy of sometimes unknown nationality and affiliation, even more loosely defined theaters of operations and battlefields, joint resolutions that give VERY wide-reaching powers to the Executive Branch and the military, and a past case law that skirts the issue in favor of it, but doesn't directly address it yet...yeah, it's REALLY cut-and-dry here.

Our country is full of things that congress and/or scholars had to debate at length over that should have been obvious at the time. I wouldn't put too much credence into a lack of current congressional consensus meaning it is a valid option. Slavery, Japanese internment camps, Salem witch trials, women voting, child labor laws, monopolies...and that's right off the top of my head without google assistance.

Due process is the constitutional right of every American. If you allow the government to circumvent that, you open a huge door for potential abuse and the quelling of dissenting opinions (or political parties). This is a case of the proposed cure being worse than the disease.

Yes, but everyone just says, "Due Process" without taking the time to ask what defines it.

That's a huge part of the argument...the Constitution says "due process" but doesn't outline every element of what that means under every circumstance. Again, that's why we have laws and such, not just the Constitution and a card that says "don't be bad".

Are you saying that assassination is "due process?"

Assassination is the end result, obviously it's not the "due process".

But due process is defined by the laws that apply to each individual and their situation, not by what you see on Law and Order. And the laws in this case aren't entirely clear to begin with.

For example, the AUMFAT states:



Is that not vague, or what?

I guess part of my point is...say you're against it, say you'd like it deemed illegal, say you think the President should decline to exercise that power against citizens, whatever....just don't play the "unconstitutional!!!" card all the time without any real explanation of why or analysis of the applicable laws. It gets so old seeing people say that every time something happens that they just don't like.

Well that's no problem, since I never played the unconstitutional card. I'm always uncomfortable around people that act as though the Constitution is a Holy Document that Cannot Be Defiled. It's a piece of paper, well meaning, but written by people just like you and me, and who had politics of their own to deal with.

I'm against it. I would like it deemed illegal. I'm under the impression that it is illegal. It does feel like a power that the President should not have.

A life is a life. If you accept that it is okay to assassinate dangerous people whom originated in other countries then you must accept that it is okay to assassinate dangerous people whom originated in this one.