OT - Presidential Assassinations of US Citizens?

Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

More shredding of the US Constitution.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

On 29 Gen, 09:40, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html
More shredding of the US Constitution.

What is the exact definition of war?
The one that only your Congress should declare.

After all, in the past decades despite so many acts of war have been
done, your Presidents have dodged impeachment.

Is Abraham Lincoln revolving in his grave?

Sergio
Pisa

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html
More shredding of the US Constitution.


For merely aiding and abetting our enemies during wartime?
Oh, the horror.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Jan 29, 11:53 am, AMuzi wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html
More shredding of the US Constitution.

For merely aiding and abetting our enemies during wartime?
Oh, the horror.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Yeah, if that were a crime, the whole Bush clan would be merely a 30's/
40's era historical footnote.

D'ohBoy

On 29 Gen, 09:40, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html
More shredding of the US Constitution.

sergio wrote:
What is the exact definition of war?
The one that only your Congress should declare.

After all, in the past decades despite so many acts of war have been
done, your Presidents have dodged impeachment.

Is Abraham Lincoln revolving in his grave?

Lincoln knew the both his Constitutional limits and also the
necessary anomalies of prosecuting a
successful war:
http://www.nps.gov/fomc/historycultu...eus-corpus.htm

Never an easy call but sometimes hard decisions must be made.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

More shredding of the US Constitution.


I think he's exactly the guy we voted for (or I did, anyway).

Still Just Me wrote:

Peter Cole wrote:

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

More shredding of the US Constitution.

I think he's exactly the guy we voted for (or I did, anyway).

I think he's a bit different than most people who voted for him voted
for, but that aside...

First, there's no evidence that the government is actually targeting
this guy to be murdered. He may be targeted for arrest. The article
makes a lot of suppositions.

Second, if you're enough of a dumbass to hang around with the
terrorists in Yemen, especially when you are already suspected of
being a terrorist, then accept the consequences. I'm the first to
insist on a fair trial, but walking like a duck and talking like a
duck might get you shot like a duck before you get to prove you are
not.

It's about the legitimacy of power.

The US Government is presumably a legal institution that derives its
right to govern from certain agreed-upon operating principles. That
was the nature and distinction of the Great American Experiment, at
least hypothetically. "A government of laws, not men" and so forth.

So murdering people by decree, predicated on policies that were not
agreed upon or even reasonably consented to, is a naked flouting of
due process. You either have due process all the time, or you don't
have due process.

That's why we have to treat criminals procedurally as criminals and
not psychopathically as "terrists", no matter how much we hate and
fear them. Because respecting the legal rights of our enemies is the
only way we can maintain respect for our own legal rights. The same
applies to civil rights and, ultimately, human rights. But first
things first, and the first thing is to develop a national standard of
conduct that is more coherent and ethical than that of an injured
rabid dog.

Chalo

Chalo wrote:
Still Just Me wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

More shredding of the US Constitution.
I think he's exactly the guy we voted for (or I did, anyway).
I think he's a bit different than most people who voted for him voted
for, but that aside...

First, there's no evidence that the government is actually targeting
this guy to be murdered. He may be targeted for arrest. The article
makes a lot of suppositions.

Second, if you're enough of a dumbass to hang around with the
terrorists in Yemen, especially when you are already suspected of
being a terrorist, then accept the consequences. I'm the first to
insist on a fair trial, but walking like a duck and talking like a
duck might get you shot like a duck before you get to prove you are
not.

It's about the legitimacy of power.

The US Government is presumably a legal institution that derives its
right to govern from certain agreed-upon operating principles. That
was the nature and distinction of the Great American Experiment, at
least hypothetically. "A government of laws, not men" and so forth.

So murdering people by decree, predicated on policies that were not
agreed upon or even reasonably consented to, is a naked flouting of
due process. You either have due process all the time, or you don't
have due process.

That's why we have to treat criminals procedurally as criminals and
not psychopathically as "terrists", no matter how much we hate and
fear them. Because respecting the legal rights of our enemies is the
only way we can maintain respect for our own legal rights. The same
applies to civil rights and, ultimately, human rights. But first
things first, and the first thing is to develop a national standard of
conduct that is more coherent and ethical than that of an injured
rabid dog.

Chalo

I don't know. I think counter-terrorism is a dirty business,
particularly waged abroad. Pragmatically, I don't think we really have
good options. I don't like it, but I'm willing to accept it. I don't
find it nearly as troubling as our historical large scale operations,
which would themselves qualify as terrorism, either directly or through
proxies.

Al-Qaeda declared war unilaterally on us and deliberately operates in
lawless regions, I think we have little choice but to use blunt and
nasty tactics. I don't see that US citizenship should confer any
protection in those circumstances.

On Jan 29, 2:40*am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

More shredding of the US Constitution.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

Hi, Tom, I am really proud and pleased to have Mr Obama as our
president.

I bet you could like him too if he had blue eyes?

Come on Tommy, fess up. :-)

Lewis.

*****

Chalo wrote:
Still Just Me wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Is this we (the non-elite) voted for?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

More shredding of the US Constitution.
I think he's exactly the guy we voted for (or I did, anyway).
I think he's a bit different than most people who voted for him voted
for, but that aside...

First, there's no evidence that the government is actually targeting
this guy to be murdered. He may be targeted for arrest. The article
makes a lot of suppositions.

Second, if you're enough of a dumbass to hang around with the
terrorists in Yemen, especially when you are already suspected of
being a terrorist, then accept the consequences. I'm the first to
insist on a fair trial, but walking like a duck and talking like a
duck might get you shot like a duck before you get to prove you are
not.

It's about the legitimacy of power.

The US Government is presumably a legal institution that derives its
right to govern from certain agreed-upon operating principles. That
was the nature and distinction of the Great American Experiment, at
least hypothetically. "A government of laws, not men" and so forth.

So murdering people by decree, predicated on policies that were not
agreed upon or even reasonably consented to, is a naked flouting of
due process. You either have due process all the time, or you don't
have due process.

That's why we have to treat criminals procedurally as criminals and
not psychopathically as "terrists", no matter how much we hate and
fear them. Because respecting the legal rights of our enemies is the
only way we can maintain respect for our own legal rights. The same
applies to civil rights and, ultimately, human rights. But first
things first, and the first thing is to develop a national standard of
conduct that is more coherent and ethical than that of an injured
rabid dog.

I think rabid dogs should be shot.
You?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971