mickey疯了

There are intense debates underway in the United States over the question of targeted killings of terrorist suspects abroad – particularly when those individuals are U.S. citizens.

Some argue that once the president has received authorization to use military force, the executive's war-making powers give him the right to target enemies at war with the United States. When an enemy is diffuse and splintered, like al-Qaida, the definition of the battlefield changes, proponents argue. And if that enemy poses a threat to the United States, even from a nontraditional battlefield, that person is a legitimate target — American citizen or not.

Others are troubled by this line of thinking. The Constitution affords all citizens the due process of law, they argue, and defining the battlefield so broadly undermines the intent of the Founding Fathers. Killing outside of the U.S. justice system, they say, must only be a last resort in response to a truly imminent threat.

Two teams recently debated the motion, "The president has constitutional power to target and kill U.S. citizens abroad," in an Oxford-style debate for Intelligence Squared In these events, the team that sways the most people by the end of the debate is declared the winner.

Before the debate, the audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia voted 29 percent in favor of the motion and 44 percent against, with 27 percent undecided. Afterward, 54 percent agreed with the motion, while 39 percent disagreed — meaning the side arguing that the president should have the power to target and kill U.S. citizens abroad won this particular debate.

Skyler

http://oe.passions.com.cn/data/appbyme/upload/audio/201504/30/nIVPaQh2mXJf.mp3