This lawyer enabled the extrajudicial killing of an American
At least one should hope that these sorts of things aren't taking place on American soil?!
Crap I hope the fifth amendment applies to me:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ... nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
Two cents, not that military options often times in battlefield circumstances are such that applied force in any given circumstance could be likely for a targeted area, its hard to imagine in the circumstance of options taken off the table in the above case, that an individual American or otherwise, would be afforded any more protections then already exist. Likely military responses in such circumstances would be one and the same, or that any manner of covert operations could be likely if extrajudicial attempts were one and the same, or in other words, the above law seems nothing more then formalization of existing processes and likely an affront of over reach to existing constitutional law in the first place. Likely a 'terrorist' target identified and sought after deals with the same response measures irrespective which is to say regardless the pursuit and killing of Osama Bin Laden doesn't change in the wake of such legal constructions, and likely it neither provides any mending of necessity (that is, would have truly aided in the process of going after a given terrorist target). Other then leaving some loop hole which now potentially leaves an added definition of those with rights and given to caveats...a lawyers conception that has little to do with a given reality other then something fabricated in his own minds...basically lip service to bull shit.
Crap I hope the fifth amendment applies to me:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ... nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
Two cents, not that military options often times in battlefield circumstances are such that applied force in any given circumstance could be likely for a targeted area, its hard to imagine in the circumstance of options taken off the table in the above case, that an individual American or otherwise, would be afforded any more protections then already exist. Likely military responses in such circumstances would be one and the same, or that any manner of covert operations could be likely if extrajudicial attempts were one and the same, or in other words, the above law seems nothing more then formalization of existing processes and likely an affront of over reach to existing constitutional law in the first place. Likely a 'terrorist' target identified and sought after deals with the same response measures irrespective which is to say regardless the pursuit and killing of Osama Bin Laden doesn't change in the wake of such legal constructions, and likely it neither provides any mending of necessity (that is, would have truly aided in the process of going after a given terrorist target). Other then leaving some loop hole which now potentially leaves an added definition of those with rights and given to caveats...a lawyers conception that has little to do with a given reality other then something fabricated in his own minds...basically lip service to bull shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment