There's a mindset that says that any number of civilian casualties is acceptable if it keeps an American troop out of danger. You hear that attitude expressed wherever something offensive is being considered- "If one teenager's life is saved..." "If one accident is prevented..." "If one terrorist is caught..." "If one child is protected from bullying..." "If one soldier is kept out of harms way...", well, anything is justifiable.
Civilian casualties would be diminished if ISIS wasn't using them as human shields. That a war crime.
Originally Posted by poweRob
Interpreting the constitution is the sole job of the SCOTUS. That is what they are there for.
Originally Posted by apdst
Ok...where does Article 3 of The Constitution say interpret?