Supreme court already ruled him irreprochable.
So the reason why prisoners have rights is because if they didn’t, what that would mean is that you could be stripped of your human rights by being declared a criminal.
Donald Trump wants to try to do that with the word terrorist.
He kills newborns, so of course he just wants to kill his enemies.
Is that confirmed to be in the Epstein files? I’ve heard this a few times recently.
This goes back to Obama. But according to US policy in action? Yes.
Liberals didn’t have a problem with it under Obama, although the left did. One among many of the contributing factors to 2016, was liberals allegiance to the military industrial complex at the cost of American lives and our ability to find social programs. Hillary was very, very much on one side of that divide. And liberals then didn’t care enough to see it as something Obama needed to be held accountable for. That lack of accountability or willingness to draw a distinction between right and wrong is the basis for why we’re here today.
Is the answer also “yes” according to US law though? I doubt it, could be wrong though.
What exactly is law? Is it words on paper? Is it the decision of a court? A spiritual interpretation held in the heart of the reader?
A practical interpretation is that law is whatever policies the state chooses to either enforce or not enforce through its monopoly of violence. In this interpretation then, state assassinations are perfectly legal, habeus corpus, due process, etc… are merely administrative considerations.
Is the Intercept any good any more, generally speaking? Earnest question.
I used to read it when Grimm and Scahill were around…but I realized I haven’t read an article there in years. This one seems OK.
