Display:
As far as I can understand, assassinations are unconstitutional by definition, since the target doesn't get to be present at a trial.

The only way I can see of justifying them would be to consider them to be precise military strikes that are part of a larger war effort, but if that's what they are, then "assassinations" are a poor name for them.

This is just one example of the inevitable lawlessness that the concept "war on terror" leads to.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 02:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree, but I guess there are two issues here: 1, the illegality of assassinating anyone, and 2, the end of Constitutional safeguards when the entire decision on whether or not to kill is the President's alone. They're both morally wrong and post-Constitutional.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 10:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series