tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1994702600188860929.post2754501739970281367..comments2023-08-25T09:37:35.901-04:00Comments on Diary of a Mad IT Manager: Slippery SlopeMad Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03912917905902320109noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1994702600188860929.post-87209397583984865192010-04-11T01:03:37.151-04:002010-04-11T01:03:37.151-04:00Um, yeah, No. First, he's engaged as an enemy...Um, yeah, No. First, he's engaged as an enemy combatant in a war against the United States. Secondly, the 'Constitutional Rights' of American Citizens are curtailed all the time. Felons are still citizens, and they can't be tortured or taxed without representation. But they can't vote or own guns, either. To the extent he has crossed the line from talking shit to doing shit, he is a legal target, and rightly so. That would be the case regardless of whether he was in the CONUS or not, to the extent that he represented an immediate or even imminant threat to U.S. citizens or property. Yes, it's legal to kill him to prevent him from murdering someone else. It's not simple or pretty, but those are the facts. His right to free action ends at my right not to be killed by terrorist assholes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1994702600188860929.post-24929564653888758172010-04-08T21:11:00.620-04:002010-04-08T21:11:00.620-04:00He's overseas, which changes his rights. I...He's overseas, which changes his rights. I'm not happy that Bush & Congress never sorted this out. Under Bush, feds grabbed Jose Padilla off the street and held him as a terrorist. It was the right thing to do, but set a bad precedent that should have been defined & limited by subsequent law. Still waiting.... This case is justified in itself, for a known enemy of the US overseas, but for precedent's sake it needs to be limited by laws that Congress should start drafting.Old Doctor Weaselnoreply@blogger.com