US citizen gunned down by American Government in Yemen

jconnelly-380x457.jpg


i want your due process
 
Yurt said:
ok.

and if taking him out significantly or completely eliminates the risk to the nation, you still aren't down for that?

what if his plan had been carried out?
Click to expand...

I am sorry Yurt, I am seldom able to take hypothetical situations seriously enough to give them due consideration.
However, I really don't think any cases can be made for end runs arround the constitution.
 
Return of Dune said:
No american shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law.

There was no arrest, no trial, no sentence. He wasn't even tried in absentia.

We have now slid so far down the slippery slope that no one even notices anymore.
Click to expand...

Nice to see that you have the Bleeding Heart Liberal definition; but that's not what it says. :)
 
Return of Dune said:
I am sorry Yurt, I am seldom able to take hypothetical situations seriously enough to give them due consideration.
However, I really don't think any cases can be made for end runs arround the constitution.
Click to expand...

no worries, i appreciate the honesty. the reason i use hypos here, is because we are basically discussing hypos. there is no case on point, there is no statutory law on point, and the constitution is somewhat vague when it comes to a president's power to use our armed forces. i was hoping the hypos would flesh out the core of the issue or the core of your concerns. stated another way, what is your limit and what is constitutional and not constitutional to you.

you seem to be ok with bin ladin's take down, but have some reservations about this guy (name?). just curious why.
 
Return of Dune said:
Yes, yes, we are all glad the big bad terrorist is dead.
What about the 5th ammendment?


The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

All they had to do to make this legal was to try him in absentia and find him guilty of treason.
Why the end run arround the constitution?
Click to expand...
It was cheaper you know, what with the appeal process's and getting SCOTUS involved.
Plus; what would finding him guilty, in absentia, accomplish?
 
Yurt said:
some of it....yes

self incrimination....doesn't exist unless used in a court room
Click to expand...


But that's only because the Constitution is specific on that point. You can't be a witness against yourself in a criminal case outside of a court room.
 
Yurt said:
no worries, i appreciate the honesty. the reason i use hypos here, is because we are basically discussing hypos. there is no case on point, there is no statutory law on point, and the constitution is somewhat vague when it comes to a president's power to use our armed forces. i was hoping the hypos would flesh out the core of the issue or the core of your concerns. stated another way, what is your limit and what is constitutional and not constitutional to you.

you seem to be ok with bin ladin's take down, but have some reservations about this guy (name?). just curious why.
Click to expand...

This guy was assassinated. The intent in the case of Bin Laden, as far as I know, was that he was supposed to be captured, if possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top