Who Says Assassination Targets Took Up Arms Against the United States?

6f60jury Who Says Assassination Targets Took Up Arms Against the United States?

Yesterday, in the course of
defending the Obama Administration’s policy of targeted killings of
accused terrorists, including American citizens overseas, White
House spokes-lackey Jay Carney vaguely cited “ample judicial
precedent” for snuffing enemies of the United States. He did,
however, gloss over a rather long and storied history of something
called “due process” during the course of which the government is
supposed to prove it didn’t grab the wrong poor bastard, either by
accident, or through malice. Here’s
how the exchange went:
Q    But let’s be clear.  This is giving a
legal justification for killing American citizens without any trial
whatsoever, without any evidence.
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would point you to the ample judicial
precedent for the idea that someone who takes up arms against the
United States in a war against the United States is an enemy, and
therefore could be targeted accordingly.  That’s I think
established in a number of cases, and I’m not even a lawyer and I’m
aware of that.
But how do we know the someone is being snuffed because
he actually “takes up arms against the United States” and not
because some facial recognition software went haywire or, worse,
because he’s inconvenient or offensive to U.S. officials in a way
that doesn’t legitimately command punishment? All we have is the
word of the administration that enemies of the United States are
being targeted for death. But the case hasn’t been proven in any
way that’s open to scrutiny.Yeah, due process is hard because you have to show your work and
convince (supposedly) skeptical observers. It’s supposed to be that
way.

Link - 

Who Says Assassination Targets Took Up Arms Against the United States?


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Loading

Recent Posts

Buy VPN

Archives

netload.in
%d bloggers like this: