- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,776
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It's worth noting at this point that the Fed Gov has recently tried to claim that the continental US constitutes a battlefield for legal purposes--they can follow the rules for battlefield situations here in the domestic US--because the War on Terror can be fought anywhere.Paul's is a valid question and it's why we need people like Paul to ask them. Jasonxe posts exactly why it's a valid question. It's not as simple as "you can't kill an American citizen" without a trial but the facts are, the government knew they were going to target him so they could have held a trial. He doesn't have to be present for a trial to be held.
I'll grant that this isn't all black and white that there are other considerations but all the same, it certainly should give everyone pause that the government can just kill an American citizen based only on the idea that he was involved in something. If they believe he was a threat to the U.S., I would even consider the idea of a military trial as being valid.
This is a different arguement than what would have applied to OBL. He did not have Constitutional Rights.
And Paul does have a point that this is a dangerous precedent.