4 ms·

> I believe strongly that the executive authorities--be that police, FBI, NSA, ICE, or EPA--should not have the ability to creatively interpret laws. If we allo

by csdvrx 4y ago

> I believe strongly that the executive authorities--be that police, FBI, NSA, ICE, or EPA--should not have the ability to creatively interpret laws. If we allow them to do that, we open the door to innumerable abuses. Totally: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati... "Lawyers for the Obama administration, arguing for their ability to kill an American citizen without trial in Yemen, contended that the protection of US citizenship was effectively removed by a key congressional act that blessed a global war against al-Qaida. Known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), the broad and controversial 2001 law played a major role in the legal decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, the former al-Qaida propagandist and US citizen, in 2011, according to a redacted memorandum made public on Monday." I don't want the executive or the administration to use creative interpretations to allow themselves to legally become judge, jury and executioner through executive order (pun intended) that may be very hard to claw back. The constitution and the supreme court are here for a good reason: to prevent such abuses.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
Although I think that terrorists in general should be denied Geneva Conventions and protections, I do think there should have been a judicial process to determine, and make the case for said terrorist (Anwar al-Awlaki) being an enemy of the state, and an authorized target. Then, through an adversarial process, he would have had his day in court, along with all of the rights of appeal that come with a judicial decision. I cringe sometime when I think about the potential burden of evidence not being brought forth to make a case that someone is a terrorist, and then getting droned. > I don't want the executive or the administration to use creative interpretations to allow themselves to legally become judge, jury and executioner through executive order (pun intended) that may be very hard to claw back. The constitution and the supreme court are here for a good reason: to prevent such abuses. Well said. One man's freedom fighter, or terrorist, could one day become, one's political adversary.

by csdvrx 4y ago

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

Although I think that terrorists in general should be denied Geneva Conventions and protections, I do think there should have been a judicial process to determine, and make the case for said terrorist (Anwar al-Awlaki) being an enemy of the state, and an authorized target. Then, through an adversarial process, he would have had his day in court, along with all of the rights of appeal that come with a judicial decision. I cringe sometime when I think about the potential burden of evidence not being brought forth to make a case that someone is a terrorist, and then getting droned. > I don't want the executive or the administration to use creative interpretations to allow themselves to legally become judge, jury and executioner through executive order (pun intended) that may be very hard to claw back. The constitution and the supreme court are here for a good reason: to prevent such abuses. Well said. One man's freedom fighter, or terrorist, could one day become, one's political adversary.