Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights!
Does this administration and congress agree that we are “at war” or not? If so, with whom? Has it been officially declared?
The man targeted was an American citizen. He was accused, but not tried or convicted. Can POTUS now “put out a contract” on any American he doesn't like?
We sent drones to Yemen and troops to Libya and Pakistan to “take out” people designated by POTUS as enemies. If Bin Laden had been spotted in London, would we have disregarded Great Britain's sovereignty in the same manner?
Please don't tell me I'm too liberal for you; actually, I'm probably somewhere to the right of Jesse Helms, but I feel like amateurs are running our foreign policy. We could stumble into another world war at a time when we might not come out on top.
I suppose most of this comes down to which position at which time in history is more effectively argued. Neither the Constitution nor the UCMJ condones summary executions for treason or espionage on or off a battlefield, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened or that it hasn’t been morally correct. It’s just rationalized (I’d say justified) under another label—war, whether declared or undeclared.
Secondly, is there no overt act (whether proved in court or simply as a matter of fact) that automatically invalidates U. S. citizenship? I agree that this is slippery-slope fodder, but wouldn’t a set of criteria for such invalidation serve moral concerns more effectively than an executive order?
Interesting subject for the old PBS Ethics series.
Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights!
I agree. This is only one step away from putting a missle up an American citizen’s butt on American soil because the current regime declares them an enemy of the state. Let’s think this through, tea partiers. I’m no Paulbot.