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.
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.