The Glade 4.0

It doesn't. It would only be able to engage in force abroad with a declaration of war since war at the time was known to include the killing of non-citizens.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The Constitution doesn't protect "natural rights of the people." It outlines a system of government, and outlines what the government may and may not do. It doesn't need a specific power to "execute" or "assassinate" non-citizens, because that falls under war. Killing the citizen of another country is an act of war, and that power is reserved to Congress to authorize and the PResident to execute. The court and legal system are excluded completely from that, and the Constitution puts no qualifier or restriction whatsoever on the power of the Congress or President to make war. Their check on that power is each other, and the fact that Congress is bicameral.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In that case, I think you're confusing the words justifiable and justice. Sharing an antecedent doesn't make them synonyms.

If everything is justifiable, then nothing is.



Actually it directly follows, insofar as the idea that governments should trump "political philosophy" logically requires the extension that governments must thereby trump law. (Which, I should point out, is circular logic in that governments create law.)

It is therefore quite important to a discussion that has migrated to be dancing around but essentially directly addressing the idea of natural rights.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

They are related, and both suffer the same subjectivity issue.



Which is why a blanked statement about something's "justifiability" has no weight in a debate.

That said, if you can agree on certain common ground with everyone else in a debate, you can use that common ground and logic to come to an agreed upon standard of "justification." But if you do not share that common ground first, nobody will care on what you feel is "justified."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No it doesn't follow, nor are you describing any circular argument.

This use of the word "trump" is precisely illustrative of the problem. Nothing "trumps" anything else. Ultimately, people want to live in peace and prosperity, and both political philosophy, law, and government, must serve that end. If they don't, they need to be cast aside. A major part of that is protecting peace and prosperity from outside attack. A government that fails to do that is no longer the government and its adherence to principle is then irrelevant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sure, any logical/philosophical debate requires a set of assumptions or "givens" to work. In this case, nobody is ever willing to create the "given" in Hellfire. So therefore, all opinions are equally relevant, regardless of your personal stance about "subjective morality."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Um, yeah. That's my point. It's either a legitimate act of war, in which case it doesn't matter if the targets are citizens or not, it's still legal. Or it's not a legitimate act of war, in which case it doesn't matter if the targets are citizens or not, it's illegal. Citizenship is irrelevant.

There is no such thing as an "illegitimate" act of war that makes it "illegal." UCMJ laws of war apply to what actions members of the military may take, but they do not apply to the President in terms of his decisions on national policy. That's reserved to Congress alone in the impeachment process. Congress cannot delegate that power to the courts.

As to whether he's a citizen or not, yes it very much matters. Non-citizens have the rights of citizens only insofar as domestic criminal proceedings are concerned. Non-citizens outside the country have no rights whatsoever in regards to our government except what Congress grants, or what treaties (ratified by the Senate anyhow) my obligate us to in regards to their government. Citizens still have the rights of citizens. The government does not have some unlimited right to kill citizens outside the country; it has the power to conduct national defense. Killing a citizen in a matter not related to actual defense against an actual enemy is a different matter entirely. Conduct of national defense is not a justiceable matter, but the government cannot proclaim matters that clearly have nothing to do with national defense, security, or foreign relations to be so in order for its convenience.

See again, U.S. vs Tiffany. The court clearly explained in that case that becuase the interceptors were engaging in actual air defense, the matter of negligence was outside the purview of the courts to determine. They further stated that, for example, had it been a training flight that most likely would not be the case.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sure there is. A couple examples: (1) an act of war undertaken without Congressional authorization (or exceeding the scope of the authorization that has been given) and in the absence of any imminent threat would be unConstitutional and thus illegal; and (2) the use of federal troops in a domestic context would, under certain circumstances, violate the posse comitatus act, even if the troops were engaging in an act of war.

More to the point, though, there's a strong argument that a US citizen traveling abroad who is not in a combat zone and not actively engaged in hostilities against the US is not an enemy combatant and thus remains subject to (and protected by) ordinary legal and Constitutional process rather than being subject to the rules of war. If that argument is correct, then a targeted attack on that person would violate the Constitution and thus would be illegal. The issue is who should have the power to determine whether the person is an enemy combatant. The Constitution doesn't explicitly speak to that point, so it comes down to which Constitutional principles you think are most applicable to the scenario - (i) the principle of Executive authority as CinC, (ii) the principle of Congressional power to declare war and define the scope thereof, or (iii) the principle of judicial authority to adjudicate a person's status and rights under the laws.

Personally, I think option (iii) is the most applicable and the most important, so I favor a judicial process for determining enemy combatant staus prior to any targeted killing of a citizen.

The requirement for authorization by Congress comes from the War Powers Act, and has not been tested for Constitutionality. As for Posse Comitatus, that would pertain to insurrections, not wars against outside enemies in which Americans help the enemy. Use of the military domestically is a totally different beast than against foreign locations.

As for not being a combatant or in a combat zone , he was in a combat zone, and determinations of what constitute a combat zone are not justicable.
Whether he was a combatant or not is more open to debate, but since the entire point of being a terrorist is to be right on the line between a legsl and military problem, it behooves us to deny the incentive to do so.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The requirement for Congress to declare war comes from the Constitution - the ability for Congress to grant its powers to other branches of government as in the War Powers Act is found...nowhere in the Constitution.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying an act of war is either legitimate or not, I'm referring to a legitimate act of war as something that is an act of war, versus something is not an act of war. Surely not everything is an act of war. Sorry if the wording was confusing.



You're basically just ignoring my entire argument and restating the opposite. Do you have any support for these statements?

The bill of rights restricts what the government can do to people. It makes no distinction between people inside or outside the country, or citizens versus non-citizens.

I'm ignoring your argument because it's silly. The Constitution does not bother to explain that it does not apply to people outside the United States, especially non-Citizens outside the United States because it isn't necessary that it explain that. Wars, by definition, involve attacking foreign people, inside or outside the country. Are you seriously suggesting that if this country were invaded we would have to arrest and try each and every enemy soldier before shooting him because the Constitution doesn't make any distinction between him and anyone else? That every single enemy soldier ever killed or injured in war has been a victim of the violation of his rights under the criminal justice system? The Constitution grants war powers to the legislature and executive; it does not need to explain the difference between war and enforcing the law.

Non-criminal laws like immigration (to be clear, there are both administrative and criminal immigration laws. The criminal ones put you in jail like any other crime; the administrative ones are what get aliens deported.) do not grant the same rights to citizens and non-citizens. The courts have already decided on this; an alien has whatever right to be in this country Congress says he does and due process for him is whatever Congress says it is because the power to determine what foreigners may or may not enter the country, when, and how, is inherent in both the nations's sovereignty and in Congress's power to establish rules of naturalization.

U.S. citizens, on the other hand, cannot be arrested or charged administratively for immigration matters at all. They are completely, utterly immune and can only be arrested and charged with actual immigration crimes, and cannot be deported under any circumstance whatsoever unless a naturalized citizen is discovered to have falsely obtained citizenship.

The simple fact is that the Constitution does not need to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens or people inside of our outside the country because they simply don't need explanation. The simple fact that areas outside the country are outside are governance and the existence of a concept of war that the Constitution refers to with the assumption people know what a war is establishes that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."