|Re: YOU don't buy my example, but suppose POTUS does? .... LOL -- RichAndPretty|
|Posted by Beachboy , Sat, Mar 10, 2012, 13:21:56||Top of Thread||Reviews by Beachboy||Archive||Main BigDoggie.net site|
"The attorney general outlined a three-part test for determining when a targeted killing against a U.S. citizen is legal. He said the government must determine after careful review that the citizen poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S., capture is not feasible and the killing would be consistent with laws of war."
Clearly there are limitations. The courts refused to intervene when al-Alwaki's father asked for an injunction against an attack on his son. They recognized that was is a military matter.
You see this as a slippery slope, and I don't. I see it as an act of self defense on the part of our government to protect us from an attack by a sworn enemy. Eric Holder has done enough to demean the office of Attorney General without claiming that he is seeking the power to kill citizens willy-nilly. I don't think he or Obama are doing that.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on my other scenarios.
|| | | Recommend | Alert Support||Original Message Top of Thread Current page|
|Replies to this message|