Slashdot Mirror
Leaked: Obama's Rules For Assassinating American Citizens
cathyreisenwitz writes "For over a year now journalists, civil liberties advocates, and members of Congress have been asking the Obama administration to release internal memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel justifying Obama's targeted killing program. While the White House continues to deny that such memos exist, NBC is reporting that it has acquired the next best thing: A secretish 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice that was provided to select members of the Senate last June." Spencer Ackerman at Wired says the leaked rules "[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process" by redefining the concept of "imminence."
If you want a proper trial, simply present yourself at the nearest major international airport and I'm sure the US government will be happy to bring you home for one.
If, however, you know your government kills members of foreign terrorist organizations living in certain lawless areas of the world, and you publicly declare your support for such a foreign terrorist organization, and then move to such an area of the world to associate with members of that organization, don't be surprised when a missile lands on your head.
There are certain definitive actions an individual can take where we know they have decided to give up their due process rights. For example, in World War II, if you traveled to Germany and put on a German uniform, you got treated as an enemy combatant, not a US citizen. No trial necessary.
When the belligerents are not uniformed members of a state military power, under when can we assume a US Citizen has decided do not want to participate in due process? It is reasonable to assume that an individual in a terrorist camp in the desert of Yemen isn't interested in standing trial - they have, through their actions, obviously declared themselves an enemy combatant, by declaring and acting on their intentions to be one.
Choosing to avoid due process is not the same as being denied due process.
paintball
To complete your example, they would have to have been members of a well known bank robbing cartel, robbing banks out of the country, and the house is occupied by members of this well known bank rob.... Oh wait, you're example is just shit.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
The fact the salves were 3/5 of a person was an abolitionist move. It helped ensure that slaves could not be compelled to vote for their own slavery.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
The original design was sovereign States who delegated a small, well-defined subset of their powers to a common body
That common body was structured so as to make it somewhat self-limiting, somewhat difficult to expand its reach..
It was also structured with layers of increasing responsibility that theoretically would help elevate the finest people to higher offices, even as it filtered out to a degree some of the more extremist voices.
The U.S tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation. And it was so dysfunctional they scrapped it for the U.S. Constitution.
Somalia is not what libertarians want, but it is the result of what most libertarians say they want.
In theory what libertarians want is to given the country without allocating their power to a representative. That is to say they want to be free to make all their own decisions, and fit everyone else to be the same. The problem is that like anarchists they have no suggestions on how this would work. They don't all agree on what the actual rule of government would be, they don't have as mechanism for arbitrating conflicts between different ideas of the role of government, and they tend to believe you can have relationships with people without mutual obligation.
tldr; libertarians believe in as postcode we would all want to live in, but which wouldn't work.