I'm glad the guy is gone but when the WH will not even explain the "due process" that the guy was subject too we have a problem.
At a minimum, we need some transparency on the issue.
The transparency is underwhelming to say the least.
the wh press corps should ask jay "I make Robert Gibbs look like a genius" carney if, under this law, William ayers could have/ would have/ should have been assassinated by the federal government
You may have the press corpse confused with real journalists.
You do present an interesting idea though, what if the right people were elected? Could they just go ahead and take him out?
my understanding is that the distinctions you've raised are absent from the legislation. additionally, who is defining who/what a terrorist is, such that said "terrorist" may be assassinated pursuant to this law? DHS? their track record so far under napolitano has been to include tea partiers and returning military personnel as potential terrorists.
Big sis and Holder seem to think more like the muslim brotherhood than they do the average American citizen.
Location is key. Overseas, armed conflict, heat of battle etc, you have no issue. If they surrender then you have to treat them differently than the rest of the prisoners.
US soil is a different story. You need to get a warrant just to listen to the phone calls (even with the Patriot Act), so killing them extra-judicially would be out of bounds. But, if they took a couple of rounds while resisting arrest that would be different.
Regardless, the bottom line is we can't just start assassinating our own people without some sort of judicial review, otherwise we'd stand the chance of political rivals being conveniently associated with AQ...
Sounds like nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia doesn't it?
Do the terms 'enemy of the state' and 'threat to national security' have anything in common?
How would that be done?
Who was the fellow, the American citizen -- white by the way -- who joined Al Qaeda and helped them plan terror attacks? I think he recently got offed.
Just because you were born in Kansas does not exempt you from helping terrorists try to kill U.S. citizens.
The same way we obtained warrants to tap phones?
IMO, I think any action taken should involve all three branches of government and not just the exective branch, otherwise the executive could in effect become the executioner and that is a power we should grant no one in this country.
Here is a three step plan;
1. DHS and DOJ agree, they take their evidence to a combined house/senate committee with members from intelligence and homeland security which meets behind closed doors and after reviewing the evidence in a timely manner they rule yes or no.
2. With approval from the legislative branch the evidence is then presented to a panel of judges appointed by the supreme court and after review (in a timely manner) they rule yes or no.
3. Having passed both those hurdles and finding that there no realistic possibility of apprehending the suspect, then and only then the executive branch plans and attempts to execute that plan.
