3 ms·
The title of this is really, really misleading. The first paragraph: This white paper sets forth a legal framework for the...use [of] lethal force in a foreig
by brianlovin 14y ago
The title of this is really, really misleading.
The first paragraph:
This white paper sets forth a legal framework for the...use [of] lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida
- logn 14y agoWell if this justification is somehow valid for senior al-Qaida members, it would hold for senior al-Shabaab members, senior Zetas in Mexico, senior Capone members, senior Bloods and Crips, senior LulzSec and Anon, etc. Then you apply the logic which hinges on it being a foreign country and parallel that to a condition in our own country and it gets ugly. After reading this whole memo, I actually see very little about geography or why this wouldn't be legal in the US. The bottom of page 4 and top of 5 seem to actually justify executions within our borders.
- ghshephard 14y agoThe difference is spelled out very clearly in the document. The United States is in a state of congressionally approved armed conflict with Al Quaida. Where they not in a state of armed conflict, then there would be no legal basis. The consequences of going to war, is that the executive (President, acting as Command in Chief of the armed forces) is authorized to kill the enemy without judicial review.
- cskau 14y ago> Assassinating American Citizens > lethal force [..] against an American citizen Wherein lies the difference?
- saraid216 14y ago> who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida Reading comprehension, mostly.