Saturday, February 10, 2007

Where the Hell Are These Guys Learning Civics?

Steven Bradbury, as reported in - God help us - Newsweek, seems to think that there are circumstances in which it's perfectly OK for the Chimp to order the military to kill American citizens on American soil. Current and former government officials were quick to justify this by bringing up various "24"ish scenarios, but apparently none of the officials were willing to attach their names to this idiocy.

University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein is only too willing to sign on, however - saying that:

the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda empowered the president to kill 9/11 perpetrators, or people who assisted their plot, whether they were overseas or inside the United States. On the other hand, Sunstein says, the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack.

Emphasis mine. Evidently, blatantly violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution merely puts the Chimp on "less solid legal ground". Left undiscussed is what happens to the suspect, or to the legal concept of presumption of innocence.

They're still trotting out this crap.


Marie said...

Why was Benedict Arnold killed? I think sedition is still a capital offense - I don't think it's been found unconstitutional.

Moody Loner said...

And, Marie, you would be wrong.

Sedition Act of 1918

And sedition, in the United States, at least, wasn't a capital offense even when the Sedition Act was in force.