Part 2 of second 1022 though states all this is in regard to part 1021 which specifically states those protections.
Now Part 4 does worry me a little, but that requires written certification to congress and what not (not a huge protection in and of itself of course).
Honestly I think the SCOTUS has done more to hurt our rights than anything this law does.
The one thing that kept public enemy from continuing to lead the rap music revolution and keeping gangsta rap small potatoes was Chuck Ds love for this idiot.Oooh, more musical arguments in political threads!
Anyway, I highly doubt this is true. Not that I have any love for Farrakhan, but none of the other NY acts were able to stop the gangsta juggernaut, either.
we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
People from the Appalachians are called bumpkins, or hillbillies.
Redneck I think of as being deep south, georgia, alabama, arkansas, regardless of its etymological origins.But it's not a racial slur, like you say, it targets a certain subculture of whites. It's a group of people defined by language (often incomprehensible accents, a la Boomhauer), socioeconomic status, education level (this one is most important to me), and cultural values (guns, god, and government).
Although to your comment, I don't see the irony as one person was talking about "right kind of whites" whereas I quoted them and posted a joke about an ATTITUDE held by a lot of economically disenfranchised white people. An attitude that deserves to be mocked.
For the record, there is an important distinction between racism and other prejudices. For example, I'm distinctly prejudiced against people who are woefully uneducated and ignorant. This prejudice in no way correlates to my feelings about racial or ethnic groups.
That's funny. I have been all about the US, and I recall hearing almost exactly this same speech from a pretty hardcore racist, only instead of white people and redneck, the discussion was about the difference between a black person and a n@&&#r.
I don't care what YOU think of as being redneck, despite its etymological origins, wrong is wrong.
Also, being prejudiced against the uneducated poor and underserved makes you elitist, an -ist that is swiftly becoming less tolerable than racist.
For another year maybe...Yeah, not sure of the other party of criminals can nominate someone to knock him off his perch.
We are working on it, but our selection is mostly uninspiring.
Part 2 of second 1022 though states all this is in regard to part 1021 which specifically states those protections.
Now Part 4 does worry me a little, but that requires written certification to congress and what not (not a huge protection in and of itself of course).
Honestly I think the SCOTUS has done more to hurt our rights than anything this law does.
I stand by my arguments up thread. This is an obscene expansion of government power, and it's a frontal assault on the constitution.
What you have highlighted isn't even an honest fig leaf especially when you look at the legal history and case law since 9-11.
Also, being prejudiced against the uneducated poor and underserved makes you elitist, an -ist that is swiftly becoming less tolerable than racist.
There are different kinds of elitism. There's economic elitism, which I abhor. What I'm talking about is intellectual elitism, in other words the idea that the beliefs held by those who have studied a subject to the exclusion of almost all else for most of their lives is PROBABLY better than some shmuck off the streets, at least on that subject.
The idea that, for example, the earth is 4.6ish billion years old based on a preponderance of empirical evidence gathered by thousands of diverse scientists is a stronger one than that the earth is 6000 years old based on one way to calculate the ages of fictional characters. That's an "elitist" idea by your standards.
I refuse to hold up stupidity as an equal to education, and for that I'm called elitist. So be it. Not all ideas are equal. Not all people are of equal intelligence.
To say there is no difference between ANY type of discrimination is just stupid. Preventing yourself from making ANY judgments against people or ideas or goods or services cripples you from learning from mistakes.
Put simply, there is a difference between saying "all black people are X" (fill in your own blank for X) and saying "poor people tend to commit more shoplifting".
But this is woefully off topic at this point, so let's just stop.
Mr. Spalding, you don't strike me as a Republican... :) One thing that has so many people up in arms is how the Senators and Representatives that wrote this bill intended to use it.
I'm not -- for me though what is remains more important that what they intended. I'm not happy about what they probably intended, but the fact they didn't get what they intended is more than worthwhile to me.
I try to never assign malice for what stupidity will explain.
As far as SCOTUS goes... well you know it's been the Republicans that's been stuffing all these 'activist judges' into office so quickly. I can't help it this hasn't go the way they wanted. Also the rulings they have been coming out with are actually extremely dangerous and quite bluntly wrong.
I refuse to hold up stupidity as an equal to education, and for that I'm called elitist
There's a difference between uneducated and stupid, smart and educated. I've seen all four combinations of the two variables exist.
You can fix uneducated. You can't fix stupid.*takes shot of whiskey*
There are different kinds of elitism. There's economic elitism, which I abhor. What I'm talking about is intellectual elitism, in other words the idea that the beliefs held by those who have studied a subject to the exclusion of almost all else for most of their lives is PROBABLY better than some shmuck off the streets, at least on that subject.I think there are two points worth noting
1.) Studying doesn't happen only in school
2.) What school teaches is not always the truth or well thought out (anybody ever see the book "Lies my teacher taught me"?)
A lot of people confuse the fact that they heard something in school with whether or not they've studied the subject. Those are two different things.
Count on you to be this pedantic :).
You can pick apart my point semantically, and perhaps I'm using the wrong words, but my point remains. What a degree or an emphasis provides is credentials. Let's say I have a PhD in Art History and did my doctoral thesis on 12th century French illuminated manuscripts (I don't and I didn't, to be clear). My opinion on them would and should hold more weight than that of someone who has a degree in microbiology, or has had no exposure whatsoever to French illuminated manuscripts.So, when John Q. Public says something about French illuminated manuscripts, and he can't show he has ever studied them, I can ignore his opinions safely. That's not bigotry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say I have a PhD in Art History and did my doctoral thesis on 12th century French illuminated manuscripts (I don't and I didn't, to be clear). My opinion on them would and should hold more weight than that of someone who has a degree in microbiology, or has had no exposure whatsoever to French illuminated manuscripts.
Yes it should. But that very same expert knowledge that entitles you to brush off some oaf should make it completely unnecessary to brush them off. If your opinion is so authoritative on a subject you shouldn't need to rely on that authority, you should be able to make a coherent and knowledgeable argument for your position that will aid in the conversation and hopefully let the other person learn something.
No one enjoys an argument from authority even on the rare occasion its not a fallacy. No one learns from it either. Besides, you never know when the microbiologist did HIS doctoral thesis on the 12th century flax blight or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your opinion is so authoritative on a subject you shouldn't need to rely on that authority, you should be able to make a coherent and knowledgeable argument for your position that will aid in the conversation and hopefully let the other person learn something.
Not necessarily -- not everything in the world fits into a 30-second sound byte. Sure, I could explain to the average rube how I know the maximum yield from the well in their back yard by saying "I ran a test and calculated it," but that sounds elitist, doesn't it? However, explaining it fully -- where do these calculations come from? What are the assumptions? Are they any good? How and why did I filter the data the way I did? -- All that would require me to teach them integral calculus, among other things, all kinds of stuff I spent years to learn, putting in a lot more effort and brainpower than a simple question calls for. At some point, you have to truncate it and say, "trust me."
If you can adequately encapsulate a lifetime of experience with an esoteric subject in a quick conversation, I'd submit you didn't learn much from the experience.
I have another question:
How does part of a budget not expire with the budget? I thought that was the whole thing of it, that Congress couldn't commit future Congresses to things with the budget and all that.
Besides that bill you cite he's working on seems like so much BS to me, considering the parts I pointed out above. Political grandstanding in my view.
One more question:
Who 'claims' the NDAA and the attached parts of it anyways? And did Feinstein vote for it?
And did Feinstein vote for it?
Yes, she did. These are the only Senators that voted against the bill:
Coburn (R-OK)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
So wait, Rand Paul voted 'no' on it... but what about Ron Paul?
I believe he was not present when the vote was called. Something about campaigning in Iowa.
Good to know that the business of the nation and protecting our rights isn't quite as important as his campaigning. If he's honestly against it he should have made sure he was there to vote no.
Yes I don't like Ron (or his son Rand) Paul -- I think they are both little more than hypocrites and Washington insiders that lie about it more so than the next guy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, our current president has no problems promising not to detain US citizens. He just assassinates them.
Of course, our current president has no problems promising not to detain US citizens. He just assassinates them.
That's funny actually because the guy that was assassinated? Yeah he renounced his citizenship -- the only people claiming he was a citizen of the USA are his parents... hardly an unbiased source.
|
Ron was at a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire that night. Not sure you can back out of those easily. I believe that he did what was necessary. Changing the business of the nation and protecting our rights is the main reason he is campaigning. And if you believe he's a Washington insider, I don't think you've read any of his books or heard his speeches.
EDIT: I had something incorrect -- and I'm admitting it, both Anwar and his son were born in the USA making them USA citizens by that. I had forgotten that his own claim of being born in Yemen was false and done only to get scholarship money. Samir ibn Zafar Khan was also a USA citizen.
However I personally feel that to condemn this killings would be akin to saying that every Confederate soldier that was shot in the Civil War was an unprovoked assassination of a USA citizen.
You really can't declare war on a country and expect to not get shot at.
Ron was at a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire that night. Not sure you can back out of those easily. I believe that he did what was necessary. Changing the business of the nation and protecting our rights is the main reason he is campaigning. And if you believe he's a Washington insider, I don't think you've read any of his books or heard his speeches.
That's his talk -- his actions haven't really inspired me. You don't live, work and stay in DC as long as he has without being a part of the establishment. His words to the contrary I simply don't believe, 20 years in congress now.
He's part of the same game he simply plays it slightly different. His last stint has been over 14 years, and he's not managed much in Congress -- how is he going to do any better in the Oval Office?
However we probably are rather far afield -- My main point on Ron Paul is that it is easy to claim you wouldn't have voted for something when you made sure you weren't there for the vote (same goes to President Obama by the way when it came to the things he said he wouldn't have voted for).
Now I don't believe that Ron Paul would purposefully be bad for the USA -- but I still think he would be horrible for it as president.
@Abraham spalding
Thanks for making it nice and digestible. I was just about to comb over the document myself.
My concerns have been settle for the moment.
@Abraham spalding
Thanks for making it nice and digestible. I was just about to comb over the document myself.
My concerns have been settle for the moment.
Glad to help -- However I would also like to take a moment and point out that what I offer is only my own inexpert, logical opinion and that I am not an actual lawyer, yada, yada, yada.
However I generally find the hype of these "OMG EVERYONES DOOMOMOOMEOME!@@!@!!@111!!" issues is vastly overstated.
Not necessarily -- not everything in the world fits into a 30-second sound byte
That's what walls of text and links are for :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I had something incorrect -- and I'm admitting it, both Anwar and his son were born in the USA making them USA citizens by that. I had forgotten that his own claim of being born in Yemen was false and done only to get scholarship money. Samir ibn Zafar Khan was also a USA citizen.
However I personally feel that to condemn this killings would be akin to saying that every Confederate soldier that was shot in the Civil War was an unprovoked assassination of a USA citizen.
You really can't declare war on a country and expect to not get shot at.
Then youre missing the point.
The NDAA states, that in regards to US citizens, it will not restrict current US law and the 2001 AUMF. The 2001 AUMF allows for the indefinite detention and, according to the president's interpretation, assassination to fight against Al-quaida and "associated forces". Another thing that the NDAA did was declare that the entire world was a battlefield in the " humanitarian action on terror". So yes, if you are a us citizen that the executive branch, no matter who is in power, decides is a threat, you can be treated as an enemy combatant. (Though it is not required) So, effectively, as far as I can tell, all the NDAA did was codify what Bush and Obama were already doing. No longer will the crime of terrorism be decided by a civilian tribunal, it will be decided by executive priviledge.
And, yes, I believe that every unarmed Confederate soldier who never once fought that got bombed far from any battlefield was an unprovoked assassination. (Although the Whiskey Rebellion would have been a better example as it could be construed that the CSA was seperate from the US)
Lastly, there are quite a few things I disagree with Ron Paul on. However, he is the only candidate running that I feel safe to disagree with.
Slightly away from the current but back on the point I made earlier, the following is where Congress has gone about tying President Obama's hands in handling Gauntanamo:
SEC. 1027. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER
OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED
STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
for fiscal year 2012 may be used to transfer, release, or assist
H. R. 1540—270
in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories,
or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other
detainee who—
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the
Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department
of Defense.
SEC. 1028. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION,
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
(a) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO TRANSFER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any
amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available
to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer
any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control
of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign
country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits
to Congress the certification described in subsection (b)
not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.
(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action
taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained
at Guantanamo to effectuate—
(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual
that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the
United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary
shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance);
or
(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission
case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
I'm looking over more of the document to see if there is anything else here that's a problem.
@Whiteknife -- That's more a problem with the other legislation than this, and this one specifically points out that USA citizens are still exempt from the matters described in this bill.
Subtitle E -- Section 1042 authorizes the New START treaty.
Sections 1031~1032 details that congress must be regularly reported to on counter terrorism activity including: Regions of interest (including prominent individuals, organizations, etc that could be of help against the threat, or be swayed by the threat posed by Al Qaeda) , departments involved, short mid and long term plans to counter the possibility of terrorism in that area, how implementation of the plans is being carried out.
1033 extends the ability to offer rewards for help with counter terrorism activity (this could allow for bounties also from what I read of it).
Sections 1023~1025 deal with protocol for review of cases, protocol for governing communication with people covered reporting to congress on this, etc.
1026~1028 the use of funds to transfer, or modification of things in the USA to allow for moving anyone from Guantanamo into the USA, and how to go about it if absolutely required (including getting certification from congress to do so).
1029 requires consulting for prosecution of individuals covered.
1034 deals with the method of trail too.
All of the sections on trials and prosecution specifically reference the Laws of War specifically in how status is to be determined and/or give authority to decide on military or civilian prosecution to the executive branch.
I'm willing to post up specifics on any of this people want me to, just ask.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I had something incorrect -- and I'm admitting it, both Anwar and his son were born in the USA making them USA citizens by that. I had forgotten that his own claim of being born in Yemen was false and done only to get scholarship money. Samir ibn Zafar Khan was also a USA citizen.
However I personally feel that to condemn this killings would be akin to saying that every Confederate soldier that was shot in the Civil War was an unprovoked assassination of a USA citizen.
You really can't declare war on a country and expect to not get shot at.
How about the 16 year old that was assassinated? Did he have it coming? Should the executive be accountable to anyone for these decisions? Should we let the president kill anyone he wants to any where in the world without any accountability even US citizens?
I'm not trying to be rude, but that's epically stupid.
I don't care if you are Satan and we catch you in the US plotting to destroy the world; when we allow a police state that allows the government to capture anyone in secret without any real accountability we have truly prostituted our fundamental human rights for the illusion of safety. This is a sick joke.
EDIT: I had something incorrect -- and I'm admitting it, both Anwar and his son were born in the USA making them USA citizens by that. I had forgotten that his own claim of being born in Yemen was false and done only to get scholarship money. Samir ibn Zafar Khan was also a USA citizen.
However I personally feel that to condemn this killings would be akin to saying that every Confederate soldier that was shot in the Civil War was an unprovoked assassination of a USA citizen.
You really can't declare war on a country and expect to not get shot at.
How about the 16 year old that was assassinated? Did he have it coming? Should the executive be accountable to anyone for these decisions? Should we let the president kill anyone he wants to any where in the world without any accountability even US citizens?
I'm not trying to be rude, but that's epically stupid.
I don't care if you are Satan and we catch you in the US plotting to destroy the world; when we allow a police state that allows the government to capture anyone in secret without any real accountability we have truly prostituted our fundamental human rights for the illusion of safety. This is a sick joke.
You are correct that things should not be allowed to get that bad. This bill is no longer what people had been concerned about. Now the patriot act, not sure if that is still a problem now or not in this area.
You still dont get it. The only limitation of the bill is the it doesnt expand on the existing AUMF. The existing AUMF allowed for the indefinite detentions. President Obama believes it allows for assassinations as well. The bill codifies Bushs belief that the AUMF allows for torture and extra-judicial detention and Obama's belief that it allows for assassination into law.
EDIT: I had something incorrect -- and I'm admitting it, both Anwar and his son were born in the USA making them USA citizens by that. I had forgotten that his own claim of being born in Yemen was false and done only to get scholarship money. Samir ibn Zafar Khan was also a USA citizen.
However I personally feel that to condemn this killings would be akin to saying that every Confederate soldier that was shot in the Civil War was an unprovoked assassination of a USA citizen.
You really can't declare war on a country and expect to not get shot at.
How about the 16 year old that was assassinated? Did he have it coming? Should the executive be accountable to anyone for these decisions? Should we let the president kill anyone he wants to any where in the world without any accountability even US citizens?
I'm not trying to be rude, but that's epically stupid.
I don't care if you are Satan and we catch you in the US plotting to destroy the world; when we allow a police state that allows the government to capture anyone in secret without any real accountability we have truly prostituted our fundamental human rights for the illusion of safety. This is a sick joke.
Take it up with the Laws of War. Otherwise start getting pissy about everyone ever killed in a war, especially all 'collateral damage' deaths.
You still dont get it. The only limitation of the bill is the it doesnt expand on the existing AUMF. The existing AUMF allowed for the indefinite detentions.
You still don't get it -- that isn't this bill. You might as well be complaining of every bill Congress passes since none of those stop this either!
Also can you actually post some of the legislation you are worried about for us? Because at this point I'm not even sure what you are claiming is in there is actually in there.
|
|
I believe he is upset that the NDAA basically affirmed that the President's authorizations were not altered. In other words NDAA supported not only those authorizations that came about by Patrion Act I, II, and III, but also the authorizations that the President claimed for himself through his assassination maneuver.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit that I still don't get it--I don't speak legalese.
I'll link this article here and let you guys pore over it and tear it apart.
Or not. I don't care. If anyone thinks that the passage or non-passage of a piece of legislation is going to stop the government from detaining, torturing and/or assassinating whoever they want--citizens or non--you are, imho, delusional.
I believe he is upset that the NDAA basically affirmed that the President's authorizations were not altered. In other words NDAA supported not only those authorizations that came about by Patrion Act I, II, and III, but also the authorizations that the President claimed for himself through his assassination maneuver.
The Laws of War cover that maneuver, in my opinion. Also the NDAA specifically states (as I pointed out) that USA citizens aren't covered and that it gives no extra/more/or indeed any ability to use it on USA citizens.
I mean it is a step beyond cherry picking quotes at this point.
I'll admit that I still don't get it--I don't speak legalese.
I'll link this article here and let you guys pore over it and tear it apart.
Or not. I don't care. If anyone thinks that the passage or non-passage of a piece of legislation is going to stop the government from detaining, torturing and/or assassinating whoever they want--citizens or non--you are, imho, delusional.
That article seems to leave out that 1021 specifically has its own section that prevents its use on USA citizens (in addition to what 1022 has in it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take it up with the Laws of War. Otherwise start getting pissy about everyone ever killed in a war, especially all 'collateral damage' deaths.EDIT: I had something incorrect -- and I'm admitting it, both Anwar and his son were born in the USA making them USA citizens by that. I had forgotten that his own claim of being born in Yemen was false and done only to get scholarship money. Samir ibn Zafar Khan was also a USA citizen.
However I personally feel that to condemn this killings would be akin to saying that every Confederate soldier that was shot in the Civil War was an unprovoked assassination of a USA citizen.
You really can't declare war on a country and expect to not get shot at.
How about the 16 year old that was assassinated? Did he have it coming? Should the executive be accountable to anyone for these decisions? Should we let the president kill anyone he wants to any where in the world without any accountability even US citizens?
I'm not trying to be rude, but that's epically stupid.
I don't care if you are Satan and we catch you in the US plotting to destroy the world; when we allow a police state that allows the government to capture anyone in secret without any real accountability we have truly prostituted our fundamental human rights for the illusion of safety. This is a sick joke.
The question is not rhetorical.
"Should we let the president kill anyone he wants to any where in the world without any accountability, even US citizens?"
I think the constitution should matter more than the laws of war particularly regarding US citizens. Why should the US military be on a war footing against US citizens?
What are the limits of the executive in the war on terror? How much more power will we surrender to the government?
FWIW, I get pissy about the casualties of illegal unconstitutional wars, and I'm one of the nutty people who wants less war, less assassination, and less 'collateral damage'.
I believe he is upset that the NDAA basically affirmed that the President's authorizations were not altered. In other words NDAA supported not only those authorizations that came about by Patrion Act I, II, and III, but also the authorizations that the President claimed for himself through his assassination maneuver.The Laws of War cover that maneuver, in my opinion. Also the NDAA specifically states (as I pointed out) that USA citizens aren't covered and that it gives no extra/more/or indeed any ability to use it on USA citizens.
I mean it is a step beyond cherry picking quotes at this point.
You are completely wrong. 1021 and 1022 say the provisions are not mandatory regarding US citizens it doesn't say they don't apply at all.
I don't understand why you are ignoring the facts. Your defense of this law on the basis of 1021 and 1022 has no basis in fact. Making indefinite secret detention of US citizens on US soil by the US military legal but not mandatory does not prevent its use against US citizens.
Maybe this article will help.
This Is The Section Of The NDAA That Is Causing People To Freak Out
"So why exactly are people freaking out about this bill?
While it is easy to believe that because most of us aren't terrorists or breaking any laws, that we have no reason to be concerned — we took a close look at the language of the 2012 NDAA amendments to see where exactly the facts lie.
Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."
Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.
Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
The bottom line is the government can imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with terrorism. This power is open to wide interpretation and could certainly be abused.
After signing the NDAA, Obama released a statement saying "the [NDAA] does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."
This appears to be untrue. The September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows "[T]he President ... to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The connection between detaining those responsible for 9/11, and imprisoning any "associated force" that acts like the terrorist group, seems unclear."
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
Again nothing in this section applies to United States citizens, lawful resident aliens or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the USA (which would be illegal aliens I guess).
As far as USA citizen go this doesn't touch them.
It is only the 'bottom line' if you completely ignore the entirety of the text.
The question is not rhetorical.
That's good my answer wasn't either.
"Should we let the president kill anyone he wants to any where in the world without any accountability, even US citizens?"I think the constitution should matter more than the laws of war particularly regarding US citizens. Why should the US military be on a war footing against US citizens?
What are the limits of the executive in the war on terror? How much more power will we surrender to the government?
FWIW, I get pissy about the casualties of illegal unconstitutional wars, and I'm one of the nutty people who wants less war, less assassination, and...
The constitution doesn't state you have a right to not be shot, bombed, or killed in any fashion.
Personally I don't think the entirety of the thing has been carried out well, I think Congress continues to drop the ball -- which is congress's fault -- it's not like they aren't the ones serving this crap up. The President is in the position that he must enforce and obey the laws -- he isn't supposed to cherry pick. The Courts are the ones that are supposed to state if something is or isn't Constitutional.
IF the courts have upheld the laws as they stand now then those laws are Constitutional until either the Constitution is changed, or the courts revisit the issue (probably from Congress changing something in the laws to present another reason for the courts to consider the case).
The constitution doesn't state you have a right to not be shot, bombed, or killed in any fashion.
5th ammendment
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
So they can shoot bomb or kill someone but they need due process first. Which is why I said try them in abstentia and THEN drive a drone where the sun doesn't shine.
The constitution doesn't state you have a right to not be shot, bombed, or killed in any fashion.5th ammendment
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
So they can shoot bomb or kill someone but they need due process first. Which is why I said try them in abstentia and THEN drive a drone where the sun doesn't shine.
I would argue that due process could be more than simply taking them to court -- otherwise every time a cop shoots someone we would need a trial (to grab the easiest example).
However point still taken, I would point out the following however:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
To Abraham:
The individuals being bombed are not in service (they are not part of the military)
A cop shooting someone is an emergency situation. Keeping someone on a list for months if not years and then bombing them solely on the presidents say so is not an emergency situation either.
It doesn't say a part of our military either, just a land or naval forces or in a militia (which I would argue Al Qaeda is).
I won't deny this is quite possibly sketchy though.
Does anyone have a link to a copy of the AMF or the Laws of War as presented?
I'm reminded that status as a USA citizen is defined by Congress so I'm wondering if there isn't something somewhere that would cause them to fall outside the definition.
(Now I'm looking at this particular case because of curiosity and wanting to see what is and what is not. I'll freely admit I'm of the mind these people probably needed killing, but I'm not currently willing to say that I know it was done legally or illegally one way or the other -- I would certainly have considered the two adults to be members of an enemy force which would allow for their deaths by the military regardless of their status as citizens of the USA -- I'm just trying to look at all the ramifications involved).