I do not think there is a Conservative here who does not understand the issue. The difference is that Conservatives just plain make better military leaders. We don' t dither like libs. The only valid disagreement should be that you want to put a flower on his grave, and I want to piss on it. Either way he is dirt-napping. My afterthought makes his grass greener, btw.
this is an interesting topic to me... in that i'm interested in constitutional powers and rights and such.
it's easy to opine that a dude deserves to die for his actions... but our government, as you should know, does not operate on emotional opinions, it operates on laws. arguably, it does an extremely shoddy job of operating within it's limits, but it's still interesting to dive into fleshing this stuff out.
Secrecy is as problematic as is killing U.S. citizens without due process. The stories say that White House lawyers were consulted.Who's to say there wasn't? There very well could have been one, but held behind closed doors to maintain operational secrecy. And if there was one, we would not know about it for many years as it may cause a rift, already wider than the current one, between the US and Yemen. Personally, I'm guessing there wasn't one. I imagine a "law expert," possibly a judge, was brought in and the evidence presented to him. It was deemed that the US had a good enough case to warrant action, and so the US did. We'll never know the name of this expert because his safety is also important, and so that foreign US-based intelligence services cannot capture and interrogate him. And you can be certain they have no qualms about torture.
We have nothing that shows that he contributed in mass killings in any form other than offering encouraging words to those who those who did. As I noted earlier, we refused to even charge those who were preaching anarchy.We may be at an impasse on this, but I will offer this:
I've been considering my words and wondering how they could be misused. Certainly if the "special circumstance" option is offered too liberally, it could lead to abuse. It would be like placing a steak in front of a dog and expecting him not to eat it. So I would suggest the following in the case of American terrorists with a history of mass-killings and a proven willingness to continue attacks:
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by normal legal proceedings. I understand that if found guilty the only viable option here was a bomb dropped on his head.- If an American terrorist is located on US soil or on the soil of provably friendly nations (e.g., "Great Britain"), the terrorist must be apprehended by non-lethal means if at all possible and brought to trial. If the terrorist is killed in the effort, it must be proven that death was the only option or the agency (or agents) will face judicial action.
- If an American terrorist is located in a country that is hostile to the US or is NOT provably friendly (e.g., "Pakistan") where evidence must collected via intelligence services in lieu of standard police practices, the terrorist may attacked with lethal force without standard following the normal legal proceedings.
Would that be an acceptable compromise?
this is the partisan idiocy i'm talking about... this is just you jerking yourself off using your conservative ideology as lube.I do not think there is a Conservative here who does not understand the issue. The difference is that Conservatives just plain make better military leaders. We don' t dither like libs. The only valid disagreement should be that you want to put a flower on his grave, and I want to piss on it. Either way he is dirt-napping. My afterthought makes his grass greener, btw
there is not one factual offering in this paragraph...not one original thought.. not one lick of brains.