Tweet
Re: They told me if I voted for Bob Barr, our president would create a secret kill li
I agree with this, but you've got to wonder could there be a more ethical approach.
Send in soldiers and capture these wanted men with their faces on a pack of playing cards,
The Anwar case goes beyond this the whole American citizen dilemma pretty much went against any constitutional rights: Fifth Amendment, This was a decent opinion:
I agree with this, but you've got to wonder could there be a more ethical approach.
Send in soldiers and capture these wanted men with their faces on a pack of playing cards,
The Anwar case goes beyond this the whole American citizen dilemma pretty much went against any constitutional rights: Fifth Amendment, This was a decent opinion:
This column was written by Seth Dawson, senior politics and philosophy major.
The Obama Administration has decided that it has the authority to kill citizens at its discretion, ignoring any and all Constitutional rights that get in the way. Last month, the government assassinated two American citizens in Yemen with no due process, no trial, no charges and no legal justification. The deaths of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were hailed by the President as “another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates,” but it would have been more accurate to call it a milestone on the road to authoritarianism.
As citizens, we are supposed to be protected by the “due process of law.” The Fifth Amendment guarantees that the government will respect people’s rights when it decides to prosecute, fine, incarcerate or kill them for a crime. Despite their ties to al Qaeda, al-Awlaki and Khan had the same rights as every other citizen. They had the right to be informed of their crime. They had the right to a trial by jury. They had the right to face their accusers and the right to legal representation. The Obama Administration decided to skip all those minor Constitutional hurdles—trials can be so annoying sometimes—and jump straight to the execution.
Now, in the aftermath of two unconstitutional assassinations, the Administration is refusing to tell us what evidence it used to justify killing these citizens. White House spokesman Jay Carney assured the press that the Administration would only target citizens who threaten the nation, but revealed nothing about how it would determine who is a threat. Last week, Reuters reported that “American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.” Apparently we all owe an apology to Sarah Palin; Obama does have a death panel after all.
Of course, this death panel is far more sinister than the ones Palin suggested were hiding in the Affordable Care Act. It has been empowered to decide which citizens are entitled to their Constitutional rights and which citizens are unprotected “threats.” It can determine who has the right to due process, the right to a trial by jury and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments on whatever grounds it sees fit. Because it has no public record and is governed by no laws, this panel never has to reveal the standard of evidence it uses to make its decisions. What does it take to earn a spot on that kill list? How much evidence is enough to prove that a citizen is a threat worthy of assassination? We the People have no idea. The Obama Administration refuses to tell us.
The Obama Administration has decided that it has the authority to kill citizens at its discretion, ignoring any and all Constitutional rights that get in the way. Last month, the government assassinated two American citizens in Yemen with no due process, no trial, no charges and no legal justification. The deaths of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were hailed by the President as “another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates,” but it would have been more accurate to call it a milestone on the road to authoritarianism.
As citizens, we are supposed to be protected by the “due process of law.” The Fifth Amendment guarantees that the government will respect people’s rights when it decides to prosecute, fine, incarcerate or kill them for a crime. Despite their ties to al Qaeda, al-Awlaki and Khan had the same rights as every other citizen. They had the right to be informed of their crime. They had the right to a trial by jury. They had the right to face their accusers and the right to legal representation. The Obama Administration decided to skip all those minor Constitutional hurdles—trials can be so annoying sometimes—and jump straight to the execution.
Now, in the aftermath of two unconstitutional assassinations, the Administration is refusing to tell us what evidence it used to justify killing these citizens. White House spokesman Jay Carney assured the press that the Administration would only target citizens who threaten the nation, but revealed nothing about how it would determine who is a threat. Last week, Reuters reported that “American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.” Apparently we all owe an apology to Sarah Palin; Obama does have a death panel after all.
Of course, this death panel is far more sinister than the ones Palin suggested were hiding in the Affordable Care Act. It has been empowered to decide which citizens are entitled to their Constitutional rights and which citizens are unprotected “threats.” It can determine who has the right to due process, the right to a trial by jury and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments on whatever grounds it sees fit. Because it has no public record and is governed by no laws, this panel never has to reveal the standard of evidence it uses to make its decisions. What does it take to earn a spot on that kill list? How much evidence is enough to prove that a citizen is a threat worthy of assassination? We the People have no idea. The Obama Administration refuses to tell us.
" 
Comment