Apparently, in the minds of our Librul friends, it is morally justifiable to assassinate U.S. citizens and others although subjecting them to the horrors and indignities of water boarding is reprehensible. The only logic I can deduce is as follows: if water boarded, they might implicate their friends and relatives, thereby diminishing their future usefulness and earning their justified enmity, but if merely assassinated they could not do so and would therefore be fondly remembered. This attempt at logic does not take into account that since President Obama is now in office there is no Bush to beat
The article states,
In direct response to Pelosi’s statements during an interview with The Washington Examiner, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said, “Anytime the government willfully executes a citizen, regardless of the circumstances, it is a very serious issue. As the body that oversees executive branch actions, at the very least, Congress should have a full accounting – even if it must sometimes be in a classified setting – of the specific considerations that went into the decision.”
It is a “very serious issue” indeed. Does it matter whether it happened on U.S. soil? If on U.S. soil, does it matter whether the victim was a U.S. citizen?
Are such assignations based on the theory that the executed person is guilty of treason, with that determination to be reserved to the President or his designee(s)?
Article III of the Constitution provides,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. (Emphasis added.)
That part of Article III, along with the various rules for criminal trials as set forth in the Bill or Rights and as expanded upon in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, should be considered in determining the legitimacy of Executive executions.
Instead of opining that there should be a “full accounting” after the fact, why not demand that the practice cease pending judicial review and that the Congress grant the Supreme Court (called back from its Summer recess if necessary) one-time-only original and exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a request for an advisory opinion on that (and only that) matter? Alternatively, and probably second best, how about demanding that the practice cease pending review by both houses of the Congress?
Originally posted on Stop Making Sense:
by John Glaser
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) thinks we’d be asking too much of Obama if we demanded the President publicly acknowledge when he targets a US citizen for assassination. If President Obama wants to drop a bomb on an American with a drone in total secrecy, he should be able to do so.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, Pelosi was asked whether “the administration should acknowledge when it targets a US citizen in a drone strike.”
“It depends on the situation,” she said. “Maybe it depends on the timing, because that’s right — it’s all about timing, imminence. What is it that could be in jeopardy if people know that happened at this time? I just don’t know.”
That’s right. She doesn’t know. Nor does anybody else because all of it is secret. The Obama administration, like every administration before it, keeps secret that which…
View original 591 more words