Laws are ethics that have been debated, voted upon and written down for all to reference.
A government that does not conform to its own law is weaker for it. This illegal action can now be called out as precident if the president finds it their ethical duty to drone strike another US citizen for potentially false accusations. And wether an accusation is false or not should be determined in a court of law. The ethics of that was heavily debated back before Habeus Corpus was made law in the 1700s after being debated for over 500 years.
Ethics are essentially opinion that vary from person to person and can change on a dime.
If the next president decides federated social media platforms are clearly a bunch of psychos plotting to kill everyone and it’s their ethical duty to drone strike every member and their family, I’d hope the president would obey the law and arrest everyone to be judged in court.
I’d hope they wouldn’t drone strike everyone and say, "Eh, Obama did it, why can’t I?
Yeah I suggest you watch just any war documentary and ask yourself the question “where are the courts??”
Can you not delineate between a war against a separate government, and a government killing its own civilians without due process?
And yes… There are always courts involved in just about any modern conflict. The Nuremberg trials for example kinda cover what should happen when a government participates in extrajudicial murder of their civilians.
The point is, this is the legal take. Obama broke the law as written in the constitution.
Yeah if someone chooses to point to the constitution above basic ethics, I think that’s a pretty sad take
Laws are ethics that have been debated, voted upon and written down for all to reference.
A government that does not conform to its own law is weaker for it. This illegal action can now be called out as precident if the president finds it their ethical duty to drone strike another US citizen for potentially false accusations. And wether an accusation is false or not should be determined in a court of law. The ethics of that was heavily debated back before Habeus Corpus was made law in the 1700s after being debated for over 500 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Ethics are essentially opinion that vary from person to person and can change on a dime.
If the next president decides federated social media platforms are clearly a bunch of psychos plotting to kill everyone and it’s their ethical duty to drone strike every member and their family, I’d hope the president would obey the law and arrest everyone to be judged in court.
I’d hope they wouldn’t drone strike everyone and say, "Eh, Obama did it, why can’t I?
The great ethics debate that concluded that yes, you can just drone strike them on weak evidence if they’re not a US citizen flag emoji
Basic ethics? What’s ethical about trying someone in absentia and then blowing up children?
Yeah I suggest you watch just any war documentary and ask yourself the question “where are the courts??” whenever someone gets killed
Can you not delineate between a war against a separate government, and a government killing its own civilians without due process?
And yes… There are always courts involved in just about any modern conflict. The Nuremberg trials for example kinda cover what should happen when a government participates in extrajudicial murder of their civilians.
Can you explain how the Nuremberg trials compare to Obama needing to get a court order before bombing al-Alawi?