4 ms·

In fact, those words are not in our constitution but in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding document. The Bill of Rights, which is

by haliax 10y ago

In fact, those words are not in our constitution but in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding document. The Bill of Rights, which is law, doesn't talk about "all men" (neither does the Constitution) but says things like "Congress shall make no law..." or "No warrant shall issue...", and says nothing about " all men". In the case of terrorism executions specifically the justification given is that they are an act of war.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Not legally binding! I think Great Britain thought it was binding - a war was fought over it. Its a founding document of our country, and lays out all the moral principles our Constitution is based upon. It illuminates and explains what those fine words in the Constitution are meant to mean. As such it has been referred to in legal proceedings for centuries.
- joelhooks 10y ago
  The war was well under way prior to the Declaration being drafted and signed. 1775.
sathackr 10y ago
I understand "war" has a different set of rules, but, historically, those rules have applied to specific circumstances of engagement. Targets were well known and understood. In a "war" where every person on the planet is a potential enemy, these rules should not be applied, otherwise all someone has to say is "terrorist!" and poof, there go your rights...wait, that's exactly what's happening! Capturing and trying a person who is actively shooting at you is not practical. But the style of executions that the US and allies are engaging in has much more in common with law enforcement than "war" -- they receive a "tip" or as a product of their investigations, come across "information" that person X is engaging in terrorism activities. Person X is not permitted to present evidence to the contrary. They are not permitted to present a rebuttal to the claims. There is not even a check or balance on the assertions to Person X's activities. An assessment is made, strike ordered, and Person X, and anyone within a 100ft radius of them, are summarily judged and executed. The laws proposed are not limited to only "terrorists" -- and there is a long history of the US failing to apply any sort of constitutional protections to any second-class human being. How someone can claim that the protections of the Constitution(or the ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence) are morally self-evident, but yet, somehow only apply to a US Citizen, presents two assertions that are in conflict.

by haliax 10y ago

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Not legally binding! I think Great Britain thought it was binding - a war was fought over it. Its a founding document of our country, and lays out all the moral principles our Constitution is based upon. It illuminates and explains what those fine words in the Constitution are meant to mean. As such it has been referred to in legal proceedings for centuries.

joelhooks 10y ago
The war was well under way prior to the Declaration being drafted and signed. 1775.

sathackr 10y ago

I understand "war" has a different set of rules, but, historically, those rules have applied to specific circumstances of engagement. Targets were well known and understood. In a "war" where every person on the planet is a potential enemy, these rules should not be applied, otherwise all someone has to say is "terrorist!" and poof, there go your rights...wait, that's exactly what's happening! Capturing and trying a person who is actively shooting at you is not practical. But the style of executions that the US and allies are engaging in has much more in common with law enforcement than "war" -- they receive a "tip" or as a product of their investigations, come across "information" that person X is engaging in terrorism activities. Person X is not permitted to present evidence to the contrary. They are not permitted to present a rebuttal to the claims. There is not even a check or balance on the assertions to Person X's activities. An assessment is made, strike ordered, and Person X, and anyone within a 100ft radius of them, are summarily judged and executed. The laws proposed are not limited to only "terrorists" -- and there is a long history of the US failing to apply any sort of constitutional protections to any second-class human being. How someone can claim that the protections of the Constitution(or the ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence) are morally self-evident, but yet, somehow only apply to a US Citizen, presents two assertions that are in conflict.