I can accept it, with the following assumptions on my part. 1. Predators are only deployed in foreign war zones. 2. Predator strikes are now "normal methods of battle", and not "targeted assassinations". (The US has made this argument repeatedly in the last few years). 3. Incitement to violence in a foreign war zone is tantamount to taking up arms. (The US has made this argument against a number of those incarcerated at Guantanamo) 3. Any combatant that takes up arms against US forces in foreign war zones do not require due process, but can be treated as hostile war forces (even US citizens). (The US has made this argument repeatedly in the last few years, see Mike Spann killing for details)
Add those 4 together, and I can see that this order makes sense. If any of those legs, though, is missing, then the reasoning falls apart. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:16 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm amazed people aren't up in arms over this. > > Ummm, due process? Trial of your peers? Innocent until proven guilty? > > I'd rather they at least had a trial for him in absentia with a good > defense > team, and then sign the order. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:315354 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
