H.R.6010 To prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens, and for other purposes proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and only five others. The bill seems reasonable…does the executive branch, and more probably intelligence branch of the executive branch, have the explicit permission to assassinate US citizens on its own authority, without review of Congress? Of course, we also know how cursory review by Congress can be, or secret its knowledge.
We have given ourselves the legal option of assassinating non-citizens at our discretion for awhile now, and it is increasing in scope, as well as rendition. I don’t find that reassuring somehow…is it supposed to reassure me about my safety?
Bring back Elliot Ness. Get judges, cops, aldermen, mayors, state legislators and Congress off the payroll of citizen organized crime.
This should make you feel safer and also save 10s of millions in legal prosecution in case we ever catch any of these people while playing by US legal system rules.
Your answer makes no sense…care to explain.?
I thought there was thing thing called “due process”.
Or does that just apply to collecting rents and evicting poor people?
Another issue might be cruel and ununusal pounishment, one defintion of “unusual” is precluded “due process”.
“A people which gives up rights to get security deserves neither.”
I don’t want to dwell on it too much, but I’m more scared of criminals than I am of anyone working for the FBI, CIA, NSA or even local law enforcement. If they need to bend the rules to take care of some despot that is particularly difficult to handle in our legal system, I don’t think I’ll be a worthwhile target nor do I think I’ll be unlucky enough to be caught in the crossfire. Just trading off ideology for some pragmatism. Also, assassinating people does raise a lot of attention still, so I doubt our government spooks will get too carried away. Blaming it on rival criminals always makes for a good cover story.
The problem since 9/11 has been the problem of “civilian combatants.” They certainly do not operate in accordance with any known rules of war, and we have to deal with them outside known rules of war because they are in no military and answer (officially) to no government.
No easy answers that i no of.
In fact there is a very easy answer to the problem you describe. Identify the suspected perpetrator. Marshal the evidence against that person. Arrest said individual based upon the preponderence of that evidence. Bring the suspect into a court of law. Present the evidence to a jury, a judge or a panel of judges. Let the weight of the evidence determine the guilt of the suspect. And don’t lose sight of the fact that it is a suspect that we’re talking about.
Whether or not we can trust our security services to identify guilty individuals this country has a process by which guilt is established. They gave the Nazi hierarchy trials to prove their guilt. Slippery slope, slippery slope, slippery slope. Who’s next? Who supports the suspected terrorists? Who is suspected of supporting the suspected terrorists? A very slippery slope it is.
Of course extra judicial actions and tribunals have a long and glorious history starting with
The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Torquemada was sure of the guilt of his suspects. That we see things a bit differently now is only a matter of degree. At least Torguemada was acting in the name of God. Who is it here and now that supposes themself to have the authority of God to take a life with out even the pretence of an effort to prove the suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How foolish of me to think that our own social history and Constitution should be taken into account when making such decisions regarding life and death or guilt or innocence.