I don't think I understand exactly what part of my post you disagree with. Did I misstate the facts?
I understand that you think Holder may be justified in saying that the Constitution did not prevent the assassination. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot argue that I can tell you what was meant by those words originally, or how lawyers or judges would interpret those words today.
I can say that in my view, a plain, humane, and just reading of those words does not include a panel, meeting in secret, without any representative of the accused present to defend him, deciding upon his execution. Further, I will say that I think it speaks to Holder's view of the authority granted to large institutions that he was willing to stand by this as justice.
Not to make light of the situation, but I don't really think people on an active battlefield get a trial. It's just kind of the practicality of the matter. It's not like he was sitting at home in Denver.
If I was on a battlefield allied with forces against the side the United States government was directly supporting, I can't say I'd be surprised if the United States government killed me.
I don't think I understand exactly what part of my post you disagree with. Did I misstate the facts?
I understand that you think Holder may be justified in saying that the Constitution did not prevent the assassination. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot argue that I can tell you what was meant by those words originally, or how lawyers or judges would interpret those words today.
I can say that in my view, a plain, humane, and just reading of those words does not include a panel, meeting in secret, without any representative of the accused present to defend him, deciding upon his execution. Further, I will say that I think it speaks to Holder's view of the authority granted to large institutions that he was willing to stand by this as justice.