Reply With QuoteBe cool if people would take some classes in Law. Watching Perry Mason, even though a good show, does not count.
It's not.....Originally Posted by SpudmanWP
Be cool if people would take some classes in Law. Watching Perry Mason, even though a good show, does not count.
What? I have a feeling this could turn into one of those discussions I have with my daughter. "yes it is." "No it is not" "yes it is." "No it is not" "yes it is." "No it is not"
It works for me. Besides I have cold beer and white wine in the frig and red wine on the counter and real Australian licorice at my desk.
You're a beast
Sorry for OT
Wow! Just.... Wow!
Instead of getting sensitive about "understanding what America is all about," maybe you can address my question in the my first reply in the context I provided. They were questions, not assertions.
In terms of "being a US Citizen and deserving due process," was al-AWlaki's case much different? If you disagree feel free to enlighten me on how they are different with respect to due process. I'm genuinely interested in a response about due process. Save everything else.
My question originated from the first few pages when some forum members as well as the lawsuit questioned whether this was legal based on due process.
So we can skip all legal proceedings for the hostage-taker who hasn't killed anyone, only threatened and kill him. Yet we can't skip them for al-Alwaki who was actively conspiring, facilitating and instructing terrorist to kill innocent people? Where do you draw the line? Does the individual have to be charged first? Does that charge have to have a penalty of death?A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property.
Wait! Hold On! Australian licorice?
Yep, even has a picture of a Joey on the packaging. nom nom nom.............. Soft licorice.
Take a class on law. There is a lot going on. If it was unlawful to do, it would be challenged in a court of law........ not a civil court.
I don't care so much about constitutional arguments anymore
Licorice crosses the various jurisdictions, whilst US law/constitution is only with in the borders of the US. The licorice is addictive, more so than good chocolate.I don't care so much about constitutional arguments anymore
Be cool if people could give some kind of relevant answer or contribute to the discussion. If we're wrong, let us know why. I don't claim to be a legal guru. Nothing wrong with enlightening Spud or myself. If law was black and white we wouldn't need courts or scholars like Hank.
I have. Two, actually. Unfortunately in this case they were business focused. And I realize there is a lot going on. Googling al-Awlaki and "due process" yesterday made my head spin. But were my questions about the comparing of due process of a CIA targeted killing and a LEO sniper far off?
Surely my questions had some constitutional reference. I was only bringing a relevant discussion I found between a law professor and law journalist. It tied directly into the video sent to me and this thread. I won't include the video because it's graphic. But here is the debate I found yesterday that sparked my questions. Personally, I find myself siding with Wittes (even if he has no legal standing):
Two Points about Targeted Killings
Ben Wittes’ Unconvincing “Hostage-Taking” Analogy (Updated)
A Response to Kevin Jon Heller
I was hoping to see disagreements inline with Heller but I guess that was expecting too much.
Opinions are fine, in law the last court to render a opinion on a issue is the one that counts. The previous ones, the ones of lawyers, etc are just opinions. There are probably issues that have not been brought up. By waging war on the US, did al Awlaki give up his US citizenship? Laws can only be enforced where there is jurisdiction. Outside of the US, there are other issues that come into play.
So we have a legal discussion, but we are not lawyers. That is doom to failure.
What generally happens is; it becomes a political discussion. People reach for arguments that support their already preconceived notions. If you want to know more, there are some good legal discussions on Gitmo, why it was chosen. It is not on US soil.
Personally, if SCOTUS rules on this, I would read the majority and minority opinion. For me up to that point it is a moot point. There is a reason why. There is a war going on, and men and women of our armed forces are in harms way. Diversion does not support them. While people and politicians like to play mind games at home, those who could pay for those games are those men and women serving.
Look at WWII and later wars. During WWII most people would not support op-eds, bantering, all this what about this or that because it was divisive. To many people had love ones in harm ways. Later, our wars only involved a small percentage of people. They could now get away with being divisive. Like Kerry's statement, "I vote for the war before I voted against the war. If we really supported our troops, we would not tolerate these games, but politics rule in the US and the lives of those who serve are way on the bottom of the list.
Bottom line which is what really is important, there is one less tango to murder other people in this war. He was a enemy combatant and that placed him on the hit list.
If he was setting in some place in the US watching TV, then we would have a problem.
Posting Permissions
