Sure enough, get a guy with a gun to run into a house and have tons of cops show up and shut down a street and voila-your neighborhood gets on the local news! We're a "developing story" right now :)
(This reminds me of the gunshot we heard when we went to Colorado and got the phone call and everything!)
Completely unrelated, I worked with my high school kiddies this evening, and at first I was really pessimistic about this year's resolution. However, after an hour and a half of Aff discussion, I am now fixated on a really intriguing question. The federal government obviously detains some people without charges. Well, the question is, what is the source of that authority? Politically, the President says things like they're terrorists or they're enemy combatants or they have valuable information or other such explanations that don't actually give a legal justification for holding people. Is there legislation? Executive orders? Presidential directives that no one challenges? I am definitely going to have to look into this more.
3 comments:
Nate--If you are talking about enemy combatants--you are at the whim and whimsy of the Commander in Chief.
Ain't no trials and lawyers on the battlefield.
Charles
That's what makes this such an interesting question. Is it explicitly the authority of the President? What if a military leader or a court challenged the decision? How does it relate to congressional legislation or international treaties (to which the US Constitution makes clear the President is subject)? I am going to become learned in this area sometime soon.
Nate--In matters of the military, the Commander in Chief has plenary power to direct ALL movements.
I don't think the citizens or the congress can interfere in that.
But, I'm sure you will pore through the documents and clarify it soon!
I have faith in you!
Charles
Post a Comment