U.S. to offer legal backing for "targeted killing"

Nobel Peace in action! Seriously, does Obama get the credit for this fine government program or should Bush? I'm not concerned about who actually gets the credit, but I am worried I won't know the answer when the ministry of truth detains and interogates me.
 
I'm guessing the legal justification has a heavy dose of the 2001 AUMF. That thing should have been repealed a long long long long time ago.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I'm guessing the legal justification has a heavy dose of the 2001 AUMF. That thing should have been repealed a long long long long time ago.
Click to expand...

In your opinion is the administration not attempting to repeal it because it would be/look bad politically or because once in power the executive branch wants to retain all the power it can?
 
cawacko said:
In your opinion is the administration not attempting to repeal it because it would be/look bad politically or because once in power the executive branch wants to retain all the power it can?
Click to expand...


I don't know, but I guess it's the latter. It's up to Congress, though. No president is going to ask Congress to limit his powers to do anything.
 
This is pretty fucked up:

The Obama administration believes that executive branch reviews of evidence against suspected al-Qaeda leaders before they are targeted for killing meet the constitution’s “due process” requirement and that American citizenship alone doesn’t protect individuals from being killed, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech Monday.

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Broadly outlining the guidelines the Obama administration has used to conduct lethal drone stikes overseas, Holder said the U.S. government could legally target a senior operational al Qaeda leader who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans if the individual (1) posed an imminent threat of violence; (2) could not feasibly be captured; and (3) if the operation was conducted in line with war principles.
Click to expand...


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...of_targeted_killings_count_as_due_process.php
 
Attorney General Eric Holder:“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security... The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”


Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

Orwellian at the very least. Obama sure knows how to pick 'em
 
notice that most people who worship the government demand that 'the people' submit to police authority and if they feel they've been wronged, then pursue recourse through the courts, yet that same principle seems to not apply to the government if they feel that they are being wronged by the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top