But to me, the kicker is that the current and previous two administrations have had a common policy, which is that foreigners (unless they have been lawfully admitted to the United States) have no rights, including the right to be alive. A legal researcher for the Obama administration spelled its reasoning out pretty clearly. The United States is at war with an unspecified enemy. The entire world is a battlefield. So if you are a non-American located on this battlefield, then you are a combatant. And combatants may be killed.
Do you have a source for this claim?
The most obvious source in support of this "claim" would be the words and writings of the officials of the three administrations cited.
We're not in the days of Kennedy and Nixon, when assassination of a foreigner would be a covert operation. They brag about it on television these days. Calling this a "claim" is a bit like referring to "Joe Biden is the president of the US" as a "claim". (OK, some people do dispute that particular "claim". But no matter.)
This may take a while, but we can go a little at a time. Let's start with this article.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpubBack from 2003, this one clearly would not have anything to do with the Obama or Trump administrations, but we'll get there eventually.
Apart from the wealth of information contained in the article, one might note the quote from then vice-President Dick Cheney, in which he states that foreigners who enter the United States illegally and conduct terrorist operations killing thousands of innocent Americans, do not deserve the "guarantees" and "safeguards" that would apply to American citizens in the "normal judicial process".
Well that certainly shows that I had a serious misunderstanding of the judicial process. I thought the function thereof was to determine who were and who were not the criminals. So how do you know whether someone conducted a terrorist operation killing thousands of Americans? I thought you had a trial, and a prosecution presented evidence, a defence disputed that evidence, and then a judge and/or jury would indicate whether they found the evidence sufficiently compelling to conclude that the person had indeed conducted such a terrorist operation. In other words, you followed the "normal judicial process".
But apparently, some unspecified party has the ability to determine, outside of the normal judicial process, who has and who has not conducted terrorist operations, and who therefore is and is not entitled to the "guarantees" and "safeguards" of the normal judicial process. The purpose of which is now unclear to me, since it seems that we have been able to determine the accused's innocent or guilt somehow outside of the normal judicial process, so why is there a need for a judicial process at all? Does this apply to all kinds of crimes? Why should murderers, kidnappers, or paedophiles enjoy the "guarantees" of "safeguards" of the judicial process? If we can determine their guilt or innocence outside of the judicial process, well, just throw them into prison if they are guilty, and let them go if they are not. Why do courts even exist? Vice-President Cheney also does not seem to have explained why American citizens who have conducted terrorist operations should have such guarantees and safeguards, but foreigners should not; perhaps it is easier to determine whether or not foreigners are terrorists, than it is for Americans. I'm not really sure. Perhaps vice-President Cheney has explained all this somewhere else.
In the 1940s, the Americans were among the allies who opposed Churchill's plans to have summary executions for Nazi leaders. Apparently the American government has become more omniscient; it could not then determine the guilt or innocence of Nazi leaders without a judicial process, but it can now determine the guilt or innocence of foreign accused terrorists.
But vice-President Cheney wisely applies his doctrine only to foreigners; Americans accused of terrorism must go through the normal judicial process. This seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Don't you think that Americans who support the government's position, that it should be able to deal with accused foreign terrorists outside of the normal judicial process, would also support the government's right to deal with them, outside of the normal judicial process? Or do Americans only support the government's right to imprison or execute
other people without trial?
More coming on the rights (or lack thereof) of dirty foreigners, in the eyes of not only the Bush administration, but the succeeding administrations. But I'll give everyone a chance to have a look at this article first.
