US citizens are innocent until proven guilty. We do not allow our leaders to Proclaim guilt and execute even if it is overseas. We should have the same policy for foreigners as well. Anybody who thinks they can trust our politicians and leaders to execute people based on their own reasoning is quite mistaken.
We should have the same policy for foreigners as well.
So when we were storming the beaches of Normandy, we put each Nazi soldier shooting at us on trial first? Funny, I don’t recall ever reading that we did that.
Or going back a bit further, what about those Confederate soldiers? They were all US citizens, even if they claimed otherwise. The US government never accepted the fact that they were anything but insurrectionists (which is all that they were). It’s only the Confederate framing that claims they were an independent state during that time.
Fighting battles in a real war and intercepting civilian ships and international waters and killing everybody on board is not the same thing. It is an incredible argument to compare storming the beaches at Normandy with shooting a small boat out of the water in the Caribbean right now.
There’s enormous and well-justified precedent for killing US citizens outside the US, and during insurrections within the US, when they have been determined (with due process and as much available evidence as possible) to be enemy combatants. For example, being in a terrorist training camp, or putting on a Confederate uniform and killing other Americans. “Innocent until proven guilty” is only achievable within US jurisdiction, and even then, generally not in cases of insurrection. Since the boat-sinking took place outside US jurisdiction, you’re mistaken about the applicability of that high standard of proof in this situation.
We do not allow our leaders to Proclaim guilt and execute even if it is overseas.
Declarations of war and smaller military interventions carried out according to law are precisely that. And on the smaller scale, there’s law governing who can determine who an enemy combatant is, and how that process should work. Those determinations are done entirely by the executive branch. So you’re mistaken, we do allow our leaders to do that, and in at least some cases, it’s entirely justified. A declaration of war is a proclamation of guilt and a decision to kill a large number of people. And there’s long precedent for it still being lawful even in cases where there’s no formal declaration of war, though I’d argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t allow military action without a declaration of war.
We should have the same policy for foreigners as well.
Assuming they’re innocent until proven guilty in a judicial proceeding (if that’s the “same policy” you’re referring to), outside US jurisdiction, is utterly unworkable in practice.
Now, as for the case of Trump sinking the boat, in none of this have I argued that arbitrarily taking military action, or arbitrarily killing foreign nationals, is justifiable. It’s not. It’s just that the stringent guidelines you have suggested are unworkable.
Hard to read this as it is leading with false precepts and misdefinitions.
The executive does not declare war, we are not in a declared war, US rights do not end at US borders, and lethal force is not authorized by our own rules of engagement here they were not fired upon or even in danger of losing them.
Your precedents offered do not fit, the one that fits is obama drone striking an american overseas, and that was a violation just as the nsa taking all information without warrant. Or double tapping reuters journalists in iraq from helicoptor. Both illegal by our own rules and laws.
The constitution supersedes all other law, and codified law supercedes case law. A precedent of ignoring the bill of rights does not legalize dishonoring the bill of rights. Any law contrary is illegal and unenforceable, in law.
That said, interdicting boats suspected of carrying contraband is not unworkable. Why you would apologize for the admin setting precedents of killing on a whim on secret evidence I do not know.
Obama killed US citizens who were in Al-Qaida and ISIS training camps. I’d have done the same. Those fuckers are fair game.
US citizens are innocent until proven guilty. We do not allow our leaders to Proclaim guilt and execute even if it is overseas. We should have the same policy for foreigners as well. Anybody who thinks they can trust our politicians and leaders to execute people based on their own reasoning is quite mistaken.
So when we were storming the beaches of Normandy, we put each Nazi soldier shooting at us on trial first? Funny, I don’t recall ever reading that we did that.
Or going back a bit further, what about those Confederate soldiers? They were all US citizens, even if they claimed otherwise. The US government never accepted the fact that they were anything but insurrectionists (which is all that they were). It’s only the Confederate framing that claims they were an independent state during that time.
Fighting battles in a real war and intercepting civilian ships and international waters and killing everybody on board is not the same thing. It is an incredible argument to compare storming the beaches at Normandy with shooting a small boat out of the water in the Caribbean right now.
Let’s break it down.
There’s enormous and well-justified precedent for killing US citizens outside the US, and during insurrections within the US, when they have been determined (with due process and as much available evidence as possible) to be enemy combatants. For example, being in a terrorist training camp, or putting on a Confederate uniform and killing other Americans. “Innocent until proven guilty” is only achievable within US jurisdiction, and even then, generally not in cases of insurrection. Since the boat-sinking took place outside US jurisdiction, you’re mistaken about the applicability of that high standard of proof in this situation.
Declarations of war and smaller military interventions carried out according to law are precisely that. And on the smaller scale, there’s law governing who can determine who an enemy combatant is, and how that process should work. Those determinations are done entirely by the executive branch. So you’re mistaken, we do allow our leaders to do that, and in at least some cases, it’s entirely justified. A declaration of war is a proclamation of guilt and a decision to kill a large number of people. And there’s long precedent for it still being lawful even in cases where there’s no formal declaration of war, though I’d argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t allow military action without a declaration of war.
Assuming they’re innocent until proven guilty in a judicial proceeding (if that’s the “same policy” you’re referring to), outside US jurisdiction, is utterly unworkable in practice.
Now, as for the case of Trump sinking the boat, in none of this have I argued that arbitrarily taking military action, or arbitrarily killing foreign nationals, is justifiable. It’s not. It’s just that the stringent guidelines you have suggested are unworkable.
Hard to read this as it is leading with false precepts and misdefinitions.
The executive does not declare war, we are not in a declared war, US rights do not end at US borders, and lethal force is not authorized by our own rules of engagement here they were not fired upon or even in danger of losing them.
Your precedents offered do not fit, the one that fits is obama drone striking an american overseas, and that was a violation just as the nsa taking all information without warrant. Or double tapping reuters journalists in iraq from helicoptor. Both illegal by our own rules and laws.
The constitution supersedes all other law, and codified law supercedes case law. A precedent of ignoring the bill of rights does not legalize dishonoring the bill of rights. Any law contrary is illegal and unenforceable, in law.
That said, interdicting boats suspected of carrying contraband is not unworkable. Why you would apologize for the admin setting precedents of killing on a whim on secret evidence I do not know.