Bio not provided
@SandyDuncan Thanks Sandy for your opinion on morality and the lack of consideration politicians have by waving your sentiment in the defense of the nation they are elected and appointed to represent.
Offensive or defensive acts of violence against another human can never be defined accurately through the sentiment of morality, but only used as a tool in the promotion of purpose that serves and benefits the greater good in compliance to the purpose in the promotion of nations own sovereignty.
I have yet to discover any Public law or International agreement that would define your claim that the US Government acted illegally contrary to its constitution and outside its jurisdictions in the defense of its nation and populace in alignment to and of its purpose. (Preamble to the US Constitution).
There is no dispute to be made that an invasion into another country violates that countries policy of sovereignty, just as international sanctions against a country may also violate its own sovereign purpose.
The promotion or the acts of violence in and of them self violate human decency. Again no argument can be made to moralize these actions. The only justification for violence towards the threat is in the defense from harm, death and destruction the threat purposes and enjoins to perpetuate..
Although I align to your sentiment, the necessity of violence far outweighs the morality of its use.
Authorization for Use of Military Force September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
The Authorization for Use of Military Force is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
3 years, 1 month ago on Can the President Kill You?
Unfortunate as it may seem... Constitutional protections, its application of jurisdictional limitations of United States citizens are very clear and exacting. al-Awlaki is entitled to its full representation and protection when al-Awalaki is residing within the US constitutions jurisdiction.
Short and sweet of it....
al-Awalaki nor his location was under the United States Constitutions jurisdiction.
Yemen is not a sovereign territory of the United States,nor within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts nor the representation and protections of United States Constitution and its citizens bill of rights.
The execution of a United States citizen residing in Yemen was not Unconstitutional. If al-Awalaki was in Peoria, Ill when the use of military force was used to execute him, it may have been.
(Many suspect criminals are killed in the process of arrest and capture in the United States within the constitutions and federal courts jurisdiction annually, and have been found constitutional)
Congress authorized the use of military force. Congress did not and can not authorize the circumvention of constitutionally protected due process of US Citizens within its jurisdiction nor inside its sovereign territories.
Again, Yemen is not sovereign territory of the United States and citizens of the United States residing outside sovereign territories of the United States are not within the jurisdictions of the United States.
No. 02-5251 KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., APPELLEES Consolidated with Nos. 02-5284, 02-5288
Rasul v. Bush (No. 02-5288)
Habib v. Bush (No. 02-5284)
US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment 14
1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."