Reply With Quote
No, that's why I recommended adding it.
the present policy rules out judicial review. are you ok with that?
No, that's why I recommended adding it.
so then, in the scenario you describe, the president determines secretly who to kill, and so long as a judge he may have appointed thinks the evidence is good enough, the assassination can proceed?
would the defendant be apprised of the charges against him, be allowed to confront his accuser or challenge the evidence supporting the state's decision to murder him?
if not, you essentially would be asking judges to rubber stamp extra-judicial, due process free murder.
an open, adversarial system of justice once set us apart. not so much, anymore.
where's the due process?
adding expedited judicial review doesn't make it due process. it just adds a veneer of of legal respectability to a secret process that violates people's right not to be deprived of their lives except through the normal administration of criminal justice. this isn't that.
In the process of Article III review itself.
Why would you assume that the judge will simply rubber stamp the kill? Why wouldn't it, in select cir stances, prevent a kill where the judge believes the evidence does not support the executive action.
This setting is limited to individuals who cannot be captured, detained, and charged under formal process.
Antiquated notions of due process aren't pragmatic anymore -- however wellfounded your qualms may be, they're similarly antiquated.
essentially, anyone the president designates as a terrorist under this policy is stripped first of his rights as a US citizen, then of his life.
this is queen of hearts stuff: sentence first, verdict afterwards.
if the defendant isn't apprised of the charges in open court, isn't allowed to challenge his accusers or the evidence against him, and isn't allowed to put the question to a jury of his peers, I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.
actually, the current policy isn't limited to that.This setting is limited to individuals who cannot be captured, detained, and charged under formal process.
Because there's value to an third party review of the executive decision. It affords some check on the president's ability to target individuals at will with absolutely no check.
If you have a better alternative, I'm all ears. Resting on concepts that have no relevance to the specific scenario being discussed is dissatisfying to say the least.
I briefly skimmed the white paper, so please correct me . . .
bull . inexpeditious for the state, maybe, but hardly passe'. we'd not be arguing if it was.
oh, and please pardon me for being attached to the open administration of justice, as inconvenient as it may be for force and its cheerleaders.
it's a custom of very long standing in this country and one we've been justly admired for.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-06-2013 at 04:56 PM.
Then we disagree. The context is so wholly foreign to anything in the cons ution that it's simply not practicable.
already posted upstream:
the memo expressly makes clear that presidential assassinations may be permitted even when none of those cir stances prevail: "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal. The memo explicitly leaves open the possibility that presidential assassinations of US citizens may be permissible even when the target is not a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat and/or when capture is feasible.
Save the flag clad soap box stuff for someone who cares
"Here, the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful: (1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses a threat of violent attack against the U.S.; (2) capture is infeasible, and the U.S. continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles."
Helps to read the paper and not some hack's gloss of it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
