4 ms·
> It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be. I don't think I understand exactly what part of my post you disagree with. Did I misstate the facts? I under
by jbapple 10y ago
> It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be.
I don't think I understand exactly what part of my post you disagree with. Did I misstate the facts?
I understand that you think Holder may be justified in saying that the Constitution did not prevent the assassination. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot argue that I can tell you what was meant by those words originally, or how lawyers or judges would interpret those words today.
I can say that in my view, a plain, humane, and just reading of those words does not include a panel, meeting in secret, without any representative of the accused present to defend him, deciding upon his execution. Further, I will say that I think it speaks to Holder's view of the authority granted to large institutions that he was willing to stand by this as justice.
- jonathankoren 10y agoNot to make light of the situation, but I don't really think people on an active battlefield get a trial. It's just kind of the practicality of the matter. It's not like he was sitting at home in Denver. If I was on a battlefield allied with forces against the side the United States government was directly supporting, I can't say I'd be surprised if the United States government killed me.
- jbapple 10y ago> Not to make light of the situation, but I don't really think people on an active battlefield get a trial. OK, but Anwar al-Awlaki was not on an active battlefield when he was assassinated.
- cr1895 10y agoNeither was his son: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki