4 ms·
The right of sovereign nations to kill foreigners on foreign soil is well-established Only in times of war and with carefully described conditions (Geneva conv
by grey-area 13y ago
The right of sovereign nations to kill foreigners on foreign soil is well-established
Only in times of war and with carefully described conditions (Geneva conventions). Declaring an eternal war on civilians everywhere will not end well, and claiming the right to assassinate worldwide will rapidly erode US power and allies worldwide.
I disagree that a trial in absentia is worse or more dangerous than killing on suspicion, without trial or appeal.
- rayiner 13y agoA trial in abstentia may be better for the person being targeted, but preserving a bright line distinction between military actions abroad and judicial process at home preserves the integrity of the courts. Jurisdictional boundaries exist not just to respect the constitutional separation between the executive and the judiciary, they exist to protect to autonomy of the judiciary. It undermines American courts to water down the constitutional protections applicable to trials in order to be able to give a trial to foreign nationals hiding out in foreign countries engaging and planning acts of war.
- ScottBurson 13y agoAnd the assassination of an American citizen without the involvement of any judicial process at all doesn't undermine American courts? I don't really know what the right answer is here, if, as claimed, it was indeed impossible to capture al-Awlaki safely. But here you are asserting that he was a foreign national. It seems to me that at the very least, that claim deserved judicial review.