4 ms·

Assassinations and extrajudicial killings go against both US and international law. We shouldn't be killing anyone with drone attacks without Congress first de

Assassinations and extrajudicial killings go against both US and international law. We shouldn't be killing anyone with drone attacks without Congress first declaring war. It's a serious matter to deprive anyone of their life or liberty. That's why the US constitution made such a big deal about due process and a balance of power between the various branches of government to prevent abuse. Our pledge of allegiance calls for "liberty and justice for all". Where is the justice for the US citizen who's about to be blown to smithereens? Not to mention, the potential for abuse as current or future administrations use this power to silence dissenters without any transparency or accountability to the American people.

rayiner 13y ago
This is a grab bag of ideas not grounded in any reality. E.g. The Pledge of Alleigance wasn't written until 1892 and wasn't adopted by Congress until 1942. Also, there is no magic words necessary to declare war. The AUMF passed by Congress counts.
- joshfraser 13y ago
  Sorry that my mention of the Pledge of the Allegiance set you off. My point was that American ideals have always been that everyone deserves a fair trial & due process. Peacetime assassinations have been officially banned by the US since 1976. The AUMF gets around that by saying we're perpetually at war now. The AUMF is part of the problem.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    My point is that mentioning the pledge of allegiance, written a century after the founding, to justify "american ideals" that have always existed is historical revisionism. The fact is that the framers didn't think blacks in America had rights, and codified that into the Constitution. You think they believed that brown people in Yemen had rights? Its absurd historical revisionism. You think Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy to Tripoli to give people trials and due process? Rights apply to citizens and those who are under our jurisdiction by virtue of being present on U.S. soil. Its not something that protects foreigners from American military action. No nation I'm aware of disparages the sovereign right of nations to meet foreign aggression with like.

rayiner 13y ago

This is a grab bag of ideas not grounded in any reality. E.g. The Pledge of Alleigance wasn't written until 1892 and wasn't adopted by Congress until 1942. Also, there is no magic words necessary to declare war. The AUMF passed by Congress counts.

joshfraser 13y ago
Sorry that my mention of the Pledge of the Allegiance set you off. My point was that American ideals have always been that everyone deserves a fair trial & due process. Peacetime assassinations have been officially banned by the US since 1976. The AUMF gets around that by saying we're perpetually at war now. The AUMF is part of the problem.
- rayiner 13y ago
  My point is that mentioning the pledge of allegiance, written a century after the founding, to justify "american ideals" that have always existed is historical revisionism. The fact is that the framers didn't think blacks in America had rights, and codified that into the Constitution. You think they believed that brown people in Yemen had rights? Its absurd historical revisionism. You think Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy to Tripoli to give people trials and due process? Rights apply to citizens and those who are under our jurisdiction by virtue of being present on U.S. soil. Its not something that protects foreigners from American military action. No nation I'm aware of disparages the sovereign right of nations to meet foreign aggression with like.