Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP is really just an opinion piece, and BTW, how do we even know it's such a "chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ", if as the article admits, the Obama administration has refused to disclose it?!
The FBI killed the hostage taker yesterday. You can argue that it is not right, but I think the authorities need to have their options when it comes to defending the lives of the innocent.
Your comparison is ridiculous.
This memo details the right to kill a US citizen even if they are NOT plotting an attack. They only need to be deemed "associated" with AQ. So this is like saying Bush could have ordered the droning of all those gitmo boys the left has been squealing about for years under this new plan and all would be well but it's worse because now US citizens fall under the umbrella of death. It also isn't just a presidential "hit list" where he gives the order "informed, high-level” officials can make the call.
Does it matter? I didn't follow the trial but they granted that he had the right to a trial and went through with it. We decided we would ignore his rights to due process.
You are one of them arguing that a trial matters and now you ask why does it matter? You don't even know about what you post, yet you continue to use your lack of facts in this argument.
You don't need to have him there. He could be convicted without being there.
You have made so many fundamental mistakes in your attempts to argue American constitutional law that it is readily apparent that you are unfamiliar with even the basics.
The U.S. does not hold trials in absentia! See Hopt v. Utah 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 202 (1884) and Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946 (amended in 1973)
What would be an invasion if Syria should happen to use those biologically tipped missiles they have on the
Turkish border against Turkey? I would consider that an invasion, boots or no boots.
And you would be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
You are going to have to realize that this is the 21st century and your definition of invasion may well be outdated.
All it takes is the word of an informed, high ranking government official to justify this and it specifically says no evidence need be presented either. It's all based on their word and their word only.
Is that what you condone here ? My God, the memo says they don't need any proof.
They claim it's a lawful act of self defense.
Killing enemy combatants is not a violation of any law. Not even the Geneva Convention.
I guess you fail to read parts of the Constitution that you and Obama don't like or agree with. I don't think that al-Awlaki had been a combatant on any field of combat. As a planner he didn't take part. You and Barack just don't think of the Constitution as law when you need to avoid it for your wants and needs, it seems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
