This is a crime that violates the 5th and 6th amendments, and we should be arresting and prosecuting those who gave the order to violate this man's constitutional rights.
Are our rights worth less than the paper they are written on?
Are our rights worth less than the paper they are written on?
Funny. They can get in line behind John Yoo, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Kissinger and thousands of others. They'll have to pull Yoo away from the prestigious appointment at UC Berkeley he got as a reward for his crimes, strip the name Hoover got to place on the FBI building for his, and take away the adoration and respect murderous war criminal Kissinger gets from politicians of all stripes first.
There has been an argument going on for some time about whether or not the domestic legal system is capable of handling terrorism cases -- cases have recently been prosecuted in civil courts like the Boston Bombing, etc. Perhaps it's time to think about whether or not the domestic legal system is capable of handling crimes committed by the powerful (rich, politically powerful, etc). The answer is obviously no, but what could we do to make it so? Would that be good?
These are powerful people who had to go to court just like an average person.
Edit: typo pretty -> petty
If one is unwilling to raise one's voice for political expediency reasons when the "good guys" are doing "bad" things then all this hoopla about this admin pulling back const. protections is a bit of a laugh, aint it?
Personally, I see pragmatic difference. It is easily within the within the U.S' capabilities to give this person a lawyer. It's not clear how the U.S would have bought Anwar al-Awlaki to justice for the crimes that he was proud of committing.
They also of course killed his U.S. citizen son ("I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father") and 8 year old daughter (not a U.S. citizen, so clearly worthless).
Find me anyone other than the people in your head who believe the daughter was worthless.
Writing secretive memos on how to extra-judicially kill U.S. citizens is little different from Freisler giving his expert opinion to the Wannsee conference.
Suppose an American man is found guilty of war crimes in, say, France, and is ordered captured dead or alive. While conducting military exercises in France, the US, an ally of France, gets the opportunity to capture him, dead. They do so. Are you outraged?
Replace France with Yemen and you pretty much have the situation with this individual.
I should say, I agree with you on the point that drone strikes in general are not good policy. I'm more concerned about civilian casualties than the actual targets, though. I've yet to come across a case to change my mind.
I think the point is, "found guilty" _by whom_?
Yeah, uh, no.