We have long recognized that those charged with law enforcement or security are at risk of overestimating their own certainty, and have therefore required that the government obtain a warrant from an independent judge before conducting a search, unless there is not time to do so. If we require such process even for the search of a backpack, shouldn’t we demand at least as much before the President orders the non-battlefield killing of a human being?
What would judicial approval of an assassination even look like? There really is no such thing.
We do have a mechanism to deal with this, however: a declaration of war. By Congress. Once that happens we don't need presidential approval to kill an enemy combatant regardless of citizenship. An individual US government employee (an army private, say) can make that call...but only in battle.
Just because we now have technology that makes it possible to do something (kill somebody by remote control, say) doesn't mean it's legal. And that applies regardless of citizenship.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 10, 2012 - 3:18pm
romeotuma wrote:
That's a good question... I would say that the label "conservative" does not apply to any of the Republicans in the House and Senate anymore... they just use that image to manipulate voters against their own best interest... for example, true conservatives make it a priority to "conserve" our natural resources... George W. Bush was one of the most radical presidents in history, and the Republican party controlled the House and Senate for the first six years of the Bush presidency...
There was a great article a few years ago that explained why bush was a radical presiodent. He believed in bold moves, be it in invading iraq — which he thought would lead to a model home for democracy in the middle east — or in no child left behind in education
We don't have any better choices... I voted for him with enthusiasm in the primary in 2008, because I was terrified that we were gonna get stuck with Hillary... I'm most likely gonna vote for him again, but I do not embrace any dogma... I am not going to hesitate to put my hero's feet in the fire about important issues...
The President of the United States can order the killing of US citizens, far from any battlefield, without charges, a trial, or any form of advance judicial approval. That’s what Attorney General Eric Holder told a group of students at Northwestern Law School yesterday, in a much anticipated speech. The Constitution requires the government to obtain a judicial warrant based on probable cause before it can search your backpack or attach a GPS tracking device to your car, but not, according to Holder, before it kills you...
The extent of the change is reflected by the fact that no president has previously asserted the power to order the killing of an American citizen far from the battlefield. If you are inclined to trust Obama with such power, what about the next administration? Or the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Russia, or China? In international law, what the United States does is often a precedent (or pretext) for others, and we will not have a monopoly on drone killing for long.
So how does President Obama, the constitutional law professor who has vowed to fight terrorism within the constraints of both domestic and international law, justify such a dramatic taking of life without judicial process? It is not illegal or even controversial, of course, to shoot to kill enemy soldiers on a battlefield in wartime. An American citizen who chooses to fight for the other side takes the risk that he will be targeted along with his fellow enemy soldiers...
We have long recognized that those charged with law enforcement or security are at risk of overestimating their own certainty, and have therefore required that the government obtain a warrant from an independent judge before conducting a search, unless there is not time to do so. If we require such process even for the search of a backpack, shouldn’t we demand at least as much before the President orders the non-battlefield killing of a human being?
Your Hero. Pretty cool, ain't he?
Where are all the liberals that were so upset with Bush and The Patriot Act? This must be ok with them.
The President of the United States can order the killing of US citizens, far from any battlefield, without charges, a trial, or any form of advance judicial approval. That’s what Attorney General Eric Holder told a group of students at Northwestern Law School yesterday, in a much anticipated speech. The Constitution requires the government to obtain a judicial warrant based on probable cause before it can search your backpack or attach a GPS tracking device to your car, but not, according to Holder, before it kills you...
The extent of the change is reflected by the fact that no president has previously asserted the power to order the killing of an American citizen far from the battlefield. If you are inclined to trust Obama with such power, what about the next administration? Or the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Russia, or China? In international law, what the United States does is often a precedent (or pretext) for others, and we will not have a monopoly on drone killing for long.
So how does President Obama, the constitutional law professor who has vowed to fight terrorism within the constraints of both domestic and international law, justify such a dramatic taking of life without judicial process? It is not illegal or even controversial, of course, to shoot to kill enemy soldiers on a battlefield in wartime. An American citizen who chooses to fight for the other side takes the risk that he will be targeted along with his fellow enemy soldiers...
We have long recognized that those charged with law enforcement or security are at risk of overestimating their own certainty, and have therefore required that the government obtain a warrant from an independent judge before conducting a search, unless there is not time to do so. If we require such process even for the search of a backpack, shouldn’t we demand at least as much before the President orders the non-battlefield killing of a human being?
