In Constitutional Republics, Presidents Don't Have 'Kill Lists' | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

In Constitutional Republics, Presidents Don't Have 'Kill Lists' | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Limits on government are necessary to preserve a liberal democratic order and protect individual liberty. The potential for abuse is greatest where state power is most extreme. There is no more extreme power than the power to kill."

"the authorization of force passed in response more than a decade ago targeted people who since have been mostly killed or captured — those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks. To legitimize presidential action today, Congress should vote for a declaration of war directed against present threats to America."

"if the U.S. is fighting a war, it should be conducted by the military under the president as commander-in-chief. The CIA should develop intelligence for use by the Pentagon in targeting its weapons, in this case drones. But the military should do the shooting."

"According to The Times, the administration "in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: People in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top al-Qaida operative, are probably up to no good." So living next to or talking with a possible terrorist now is a death sentence?"

"Allowing the president and his aides to compile kill lists in secret with no charges filed, no outside review of evidence, and no oversight of decisions should concern every American. Unreviewable and unaccountable power is inconsistent with a constitutional republic."

Private Law in the Emerald Isle - Finbar Feehan-Fitzgerald - Mises Daily

Private Law in the Emerald Isle - Finbar Feehan-Fitzgerald - Mises Daily: "the brehons(arbitrators) had to be extremely careful, for if they were found guilty of giving a false legal opinion, they forfeited their fee, and the inaccurate brehon was also liable for damages."