I’d like to say I told you so – because I did, as did many others – but it’s not like we could really expect anyone to believe us, so perhaps that isn’t fair.

It is fair to say that plenty of people had misgivings long before November of ’08, and that those people were ridiculed as hicks, rubes, racists, conspiracy nuts, etc.

Even I initially thought the guy was at least likeable even if I did not agree with his politics. That quickly gave way to skepticism and then dislike as I learned more about him. The problem, though, is not you simply could not depend on the media to report on the subject.

I’m not going to say there isn’t a time and a place for the US Gov’t to drop a JDAM on a citizen. But there is NO time or place for them to do it without any sort of accountability whatsoever.

But frankly, this sort of thing sets off my ‘twitch meter’ like nobody’s business. Various tea party, militia, and conservative elements (love ‘em or hate ‘em) are persistently identified as ‘destructive’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘terroristic’ — regardless of if they advocate ‘throw the bums out’ or ‘hang ‘em high!’. And conversely, there are leftists (particularly the various animal rights/eco-nut fringe groups) who could easily be flagged the same way, REGARDLESS of their citizenship (I may loathe them, but they should get their day in court like everyone else).

The precedent set is simply too dangerous to be left in ANYONE’s hands — regardless of political affiliation.

http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/

Come and take them.

Mountaineers are always free.

For our faith in the Founder’s faith.

Man, the internet is an amazing tool.

“I’ll try to type a little slower for you.” — CinCA

Oh Tom, you misunderstood me. What I meant was that I would type slower so that my own thoughts were properly expressed and conveyed the exact meaning of my words. Seem’s the timing has been a bit off.

Well, thanks for educating me just the same. You make very convincing apologies for the State.

Yes I did, and disposed of your spurious point.

“specifically you said, “If in fact he restricts himself to “religious” activities, then he is still a valid target per the rules of war as much as an enemy chaplain is who urging his troops to victory.” ”

I did say that and it is true, for this enemy, and they will not deny it, it is a religious duty to kill the enemy and to recruit new followers to do the same. Cool how yo fell right into that.

“There is a clear and obvious difference between combat and a firing squad.”

And the difference is the the target of the firing squad is entirely at the disposal of his enemy, he is in their hands and incapable of further action whether he is killed or not. In combat the enemy is at large and doing the work of the war, just as Alwaki is.

There is a clear and obvious difference between combat and a firing squad.

The question of whether illegal (usually called unlawful) combatants can be held outside the civil justice system is a complex question of US and international law. The Supreme Court has held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions applies to all prisoners held pursuant to the AUMF. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). Furthermore, it also held that US citizens are entitled to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). The executive branch does not have the ability to hold a US citizen without due process regardless of legislative action.

Again, if that meant what you need it to mean to apply to Alwaki, then soldiers aren’t allowed to shoot each other without a guilty verdict first. Good luck with that.

No, you are quite wrong in looking at the Geneva Conventions to save your argument re chaplains–the specific bit you cite presupposes the chaplain is a civilian.

By your standard, bin Laden is a civilian chaplain and we can’t a harm hair of his head.

You also claim that chaplains are ‘valid targets.’ The claim is false. The Geneva conventions specifically declare that chaplains are noncombatants (Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) protected by Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva conventions. In fact, countries are prohibited from “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”