View Full Version : Obama authorizes assassination of US Citizen?
Curious to hear your thoughts on this one:
• http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.
Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:
The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .
American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.
It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president. . . .
"The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words," said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. "He’s gotten involved in plots."
No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family).
"........killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them......"
I just can't seem to find my "I Care" T-Shirt right now.
Dozer523
04-08-2010, 06:00
The picked bone isn't that the Executive Branch has authorized an assignation, it's that the target is still an American Citizen.
We should strip him of his privileged citizenship and then hunt the stateless bastard down. Let's see what countries offer him citizenship, then.
The picked bone isn't that the Executive Branch has authorized an assignation, it's that the target is still an American Citizen.
Truly. From the rest of the article, I get the impression that there are no checks and balances that restrict exercise of this executive power. And once the precedent is established, it becomes easier to repeat the process.
We cannot know who will be POTUS in 2018 - will they still use this power wisely?
Dozer523
04-08-2010, 06:43
Truly. From the rest of the article, I get the impression that there are no checks and balances that restrict exercise of this executive power. And once the precedent is established, it becomes easier to repeat the process.
We cannot know who will be POTUS in 2018 - will they still use this power wisely?I am with you. I don't like anyone having the power to authorize a hit. But we have gotten used to it since (due to "time factors") the President can authorize nuclear war. And "The Buck Stops (t)Here".
The US citizenship does have a funny taste...
...but at least there is some proof that the POTUS has a set of balls
I may be at odds with 100% of his social ideology but the CinC is supposed to be man enough to say "go get 'im boys" when the time is right, regardless of 'polling numbers'
The time is right...
good on you Mr Obama
even 'Mr Policeman' will bust a cap in your ass.... US citizenship or not if you are a bad guy out hurtin' folk
...didnt a cop shoot a soldier on a US Military base not long ago?
That soldier was a US citizen, and the cop is considered to be a hero now...
Dont take this as a shift in by political base, but I support the POTUS on this one.
I don't care if al-Awlaki wakes up dead...but I don't like the idea of any administration assuming such broad authority...I don't want to see an American life put at risk attempting to capture him for trial, but I'd hate to think that any President could declare any citizen an enemy of the state and hunt them down like a dog overseas...it's a slippery slope and I have no faith in the current administration...
Green Light
04-08-2010, 07:27
His citizenship is a minor bump in the road. These are stateless terrorists. This guy doesn't pass the "So What Test". Kill him, them move on.
heres my angle....
for years the dumbacrats spent great effort at illustrating GWB as the bad guy
Dubya didnt fly an aircraft into a building and didnt put IEDs in the road...
...as the POTUS he may have bEgan a scorched earth policy on those that caused it, but everyone that had an axe to grind with republican politics stayed up late studying ways to show how everything (including a hurricane) was 'Dubyas' fault
...HELL WE ELECTED THE CURRENT POTUS SIMPLY SO DUBYA COULDNT GET REELECTED
fuck that
This guy we are discussing is a fucking terrorist, plotting against his country men. Bringing him to justice does not include three hots and a cot, and a tree hugging liberal attorney that will inevitably blame this mans poor life choices on George Bushes economy and the Rush Limbaugh radio sh0w.
fuck that... off with his head
I cant become one of those who finds fault with everything the POTUS does, or accuse him of devilish behavior because he used his salad fork instead of his shrimp fork. I would not help him get elected as county dog catcher, but today he is the POTUS and wants us to go kill the enemy, (foreign and domestic if memory of my oath is correct)
If that labels me as a fascist, or worse yet, an Obama supporter, well, so be it.
Sticking to my guns on this one... off with his head, Mr Awlaki he would surely provide any one of us with the same level of respect.
I am with you. I don't like anyone having the power to authorize a hit. But we have gotten used to it since (due to "time factors") the President can authorize nuclear war. And "The Buck Stops (t)Here".
It is not a HIT. The order is to capture or kill. Hell he has a 50% chance of surviving the missile hit. If he is dazed we might fly in and pick him up but I hear GUITMO is closing so there is no room at the Inn. Damn I guess his odds are getting lower ref the little black bird picking him up...... Hell then you have to worry about him filling charges of being ruffed up by the capture team. Dead Men Tell No Lies.......:eek:
craigepo
04-08-2010, 08:37
Benedict Arnold was an American citizen and soldier when he committed treason. When he was discovered, he fled to a British warship. Later, he commanded British troops against American troops on American soil. Had he been shot and killed while so doing, his death would have been justified, as he had become an enemy soldier/combatant.
In my opinion, at some point, a person committing treasonous acts becomes an actual enemy of the state, and is no longer to be afforded the rights of citizenship(i.e. due process, right to jury, etc). I would think this determination must be made on a case-by-case basis; I would have a hard time articulating a "bright-line test" to be used in every case.
I have no problems with the Commander in Chief making this determination; both the legislature and judiciary are too unwieldy to so do in a timely manner. We elected the President to make this type of determination.
While I disagree with many of President Obama's decisions, I agree with this one.
Sticking to my guns on this one... off with his head, Mr Awlaki he would surely provide any one of us with the same level of respect.
Awlaki is not, at least in my opinion, the problem. To use a classic Southern phrase, he needs killin'. Feed him, while still alive and aware, to the pigs for all I care.
The difficulty lies in the precedent. When a police officer uses deadly force, he personally faces the full consequences of his actions. It is less likely that any POTUS will face such sanctions for applying the terrorist label. I cannot help but wonder who we will see as terrorists 25 years in the future. The political landscape was different back in 1985. What will it be in 2035? And who will we label as terrorists then?
I would only ask that we consider how some hypothetical president in 2018 or beyond might use this power. It offers the possibility of abuse, IMO. If men were perfect, we would not need checks and balances. However, the founders seemed to believe that men were imperfect - and I hesitate to argue with their conclusion.
Peregrino
04-08-2010, 09:39
Institute judicial proceedings (or whatever the legally/constitutionally required proceedures are) and strip him of his citizenship. As a matter of principle I disagree with the US government ordering the extra-judicial killing of AMCITs. After he's "stateless" then kill him. Put a bounty on his head and let good ol' capitalism solve the problem (sorry, got carried away and forgot which POTUS we were discussing).
Does this mean the Executive Order banning assassinations is rescinded? :munchin
armymom1228
04-08-2010, 10:55
Institute judicial proceedings (or whatever the legally/constitutionally required proceedures are) and strip him of his citizenship. As a matter of principle I disagree with the US government ordering the extra-judicial killing of AMCITs. After he's "stateless" then kill him. Put a bounty on his head and let good ol' capitalism solve the problem (sorry, got carried away and forgot which POTUS we were discussing).
Does this mean the Executive Order banning assassinations is rescinded?
I waver back and forth on this issue. He is a terrorist he needs dead.. he is an American citizen he should be afforded due process.
If we, as a nation, allow one person, even a traitor, to NOT be afforded his due process rights. Then we, as a nation, set the precedent, to have our own selves, for any reason that any administration can conjur up, to round us all up and kill/perm detain us?
I am reminded of McCarthyism and its treatment of American Citizens.
That said, I hope a bomb accidently falls on him.:munchin
AM
What would be so hard about charging and trying him in absentia of Treason?
That said, I hope a bomb accidently falls on him.
Indeed. :D
greenberetTFS
04-08-2010, 11:28
Does this mean the Executive Order banning assassinations is rescinded?
When did assassination training stop in SF? :confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Dead Men Tell No Lies...
Ever read about Operation Mincemeat and "The Man Who Never Was" or "Dead Men Do Tell Tales"...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
When did assassination training stop in SF? :confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Can not be answered as stated.
First have to define what is "assassination" and then cover legitimate military targets.
Is it possible to "assassinate" a military target?
Ah, time for the SJAs to chime in.
EO 12333, part 2.11 Prohibition on Assassination
No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
The EO was updated by EOs 13284, 13355 and 13470 - none changed part 2.11.
Peregrino
04-08-2010, 12:12
When did assassination training stop in SF? :confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Over the years I've learned many techniques for interdicting military targets. I've never recieved a block of instruction on assassination methods.
The Reaper
04-08-2010, 12:14
Can not be answered as stated.
First have to define what is "assassination" and then cover legitimate military targets.
Is it possible to "assassinate" a military target?
Ah, time for the SJAs to chime in.
EO 12333, part 2.11 Prohibition on Assassination
No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
The EO was updated by EOs 13284, 13355 and 13470 - none changed part 2.11.
I believe that attacks on the "command and control" systems of our enemies are considered legal, even when they are individuals.
TR
greenberetTFS
04-08-2010, 12:34
Over the years I've learned many techniques for interdicting military targets. I've never recieved a block of instruction on assassination methods.
When I was with the 12th Group Reserve,in Chicago,not Arlington Heights, they was a program training that required 30 men............ :rolleyes: There was an outside perimeter group approx.10 men,an inside perimeter group.approx. 10 men and finally the last 10 men as the "hit team".......:eek: Can I prove this I doubt it,unless someone in the sixties that were in the group support this statement! :(
Big Teddy :munchin
Institute judicial proceedings (or whatever the legally/constitutionally required proceedures are) and strip him of his citizenship. As a matter of principle I disagree with the US government ordering the extra-judicial killing of AMCITs. After he's "stateless" then kill him. Put a bounty on his head and let good ol' capitalism solve the problem (sorry, got carried away and forgot which POTUS we were discussing).
I waver back and forth on this issue. He is a terrorist he needs dead.. he is an American citizen he should be afforded due process.
If we, as a nation, allow one person, even a traitor, to NOT be afforded his due process rights. Then we, as a nation, set the precedent, to have our own selves, for any reason that any administration can conjur up, to round us all up and kill/perm detain us?
<<SNIP>>
What would be so hard about charging and trying him in absentia of Treason?FWIW, I agree with the sentiments expressed in these two posts. I think the options of revoking an Americans citizenship and/or trying him for treason in absentia merit thoughtful discussion.
It remains my opinion that these and other issues are problems today because congressmen and senators decided not to do their jobs in 2002.
An observation. I am taking these news reports with a five pound bag of salt because none of the unnamed sources seem to be familiar with the full text of the president's authorization or the nuances of the debate within the administration.
For example, the 27 January 2010 Washington Post article points out the following. Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture.This nuance suggests there may be a greater depth of thought behind the decision than journalistic accounts would have us believe.
How do we know that the president's authorization does not state that every reasonable means should be taken to capture al-Alwaki and that killing him is an acceptable alternative only if these means are unavailable?
How do we know that the president's authorization does not also include other qualifiers that define further the circumstances in which al-Alwaki is killed?
How do we know that the president has not developed a sustainable argument as to why the authorization is appropriate--and legal?While it is conceivable that the current administration was simply too busy to bother with such nuances, it is equally possible that news outlets are repeating the mistake of thinking that getting the story published is more important than getting the story right. Or, as the Washington Post put it:Correction to This Article
The article referred incorrectly to the presence of U.S. citizens on a CIA list of people the agency seeks to kill or capture. After The Post's report was published, a source said that a statement the source made about the CIA list was misunderstood. Additional reporting produced no independent confirmation of the original report, and a CIA spokesman said that The Post's account of the list was incorrect. The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list that includes several Americans. In recent weeks, U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities that threaten Americans.
Does this mean the Executive Order banning assassinations is rescinded? :munchin
The executive order you refer to does not ban all assassinations...just political ones.
Executive Order 11905, Section 5 (g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
I think the green light is lit.
This is exactly the kind of thing I wish would not leak. Only the people who are going to do bad things to bad people need to know about it.
...Executive Order 11905, Section 5 (g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
I think the green light is lit.
EO 11905 was superseded by EO 12036. EO 12036 was revoked by EO 12333. See my post above.
This all revolves around what is a legitimate target. Is an American Citizen in open armed conflict with US forces - and on the wrong side of the battlefield a legitimate target? The answer is yes.
It's definitely one of those moral-ethical dilemmas and a gnarly political quandary - but the facts cannot be ignored...especially by the guys being cast to wear the 'white hats' in this oater.
IMHO, while Awlaki is the enemy, this is a Pandora's Box, we are not a dictatorship or a monarchy where the leader can order the death of a citizen. There are no checks or balances here, and history has shown the dangers of absolute power. The US has a high constitutional hurdle for treason, but you can lose citizenship over it. I'm less concerned about one dirtball than the potential future ramifications for our Republic.
My respectful question for the sheepdogs, clearly if you harm a sheep you are now a wolf, but for those who confront wolves with extreme prejudice, god bless you, but isn't there a line you don't ever cross at the risk of becoming a wolf yourself?
Being a United States citizen does NOT shield you from being classified a combatant under the law of war. If you are a lawful target, you are a lawful target - citizenship doesn't play nor does it allow you to kill us troops/citizens and then claim your citizenship as protection.
Home boy SHOULD be classified as a hostile and engaged on sight.
Good for "curious george". The problem is that it is utterly non-sensical that we could issue an edict to have this guy killed/captured; but we cannot listen in to his phone conversations should he call a buddy of his here state-side. This admin; the lib apologists and the fifth-columnists need a refresher in law of war (LOW) versus law enforcement actions. Law enforcement brought us: Beruit; Khobar; German-discos; USS Cole; Kenya; Klinghoffer; Nigeria; WTC-'93; Mogadishu; WTC '01; Hood; little rock; etc.
law of war just ID's and classifies the hostiles - and we get to go out and kill them. Good story, the kids like it and it comes complete with a "happy-ending". More fun then clubbing baby harp-seals.
EO 11905 was superseded by EO 12036. EO 12036 was revoked by EO 12333. See my post above.
This all revolves around what is a legitimate target. Is an American Citizen in open armed conflict with US forces - and on the wrong side of the battlefield a legitimate target? The answer is yes.
Absolutely agreed. I guess I was just two Executive Order rewrites behind. Why cant they just publish a damn EO 11905 v 1.0.1. It would save shithouse lawyers (such as myself) a ton of research time.
Being a United States citizen does NOT shield you from being classified a combatant under the law of war.
I wonder - what might I read that would help me develop better understanding of the concept of classification as a combatant? I'm asking to learn.
…and Pete’s comment made me feel a bit inadequate in my knowledge of these pesky old executive orders…so I went and did some reading.
Yep, it is in there, sure enough. No assassinations.
I read a point paper that made a statement that was very well put. Why did the drafters of the EO not define what entails an assassination? Why did they remain silent? In the original, and every revision, they never specified what constitutes an assassination.
I mean…we all know the end result is death…but what makes the killing an assassination? It isn’t something so basic that we all know automatically what it is…that’s why we are all throwing out thoughts on if it is OK to kill this one ass-hat. Maybe that is why the drafters of the EO chose to remain silent on the subject. If the Administration did target and kill someone, who’s to say what the act was. Could be explained away like, “Naaaaaaw man, what we did was not an assassination…it was an premature, involuntary, termination of an elected term.”
IMHO, an enemy combatant is an enemy combatant, independent of citizenship. Keep in mind, however unlikely, that he can surrender and will be afforded all the due process privileges in a civil criminal court. The choice is his.
I have been complaining on the Hutaree topic, that those simpletons we're being singled out for allegedly discussing killing LEO's , while our friends from the Religion of Peace run around unimpeded yelling Death to America.
Well it appears things may have changed :D
I mean…we all know the end result is death…but what makes the killing an assassination? In this particular case, the possible killing of an enemy combatant became an act of "murder" or "assassination" thanks to the work of newspaper editors trying to boost sales and a blogger cherry picking facts to boost his "street cred" in Twitville <<LINK (http://twitter.com/ggreenwald)>>. (But that's okay--what Mr. Greenwald really wants to do is direct.:rolleyes:)
IMO, the fourth estate is turning an increasingly critical eye on the current president because (a) the media have an increasingly testy relationship with the White House and (b) the media are trying to ride the crest of the president's declining popularity (much the same way it sought to ride the crest of the man's rising popularity when he was pitching "hope" and "change" as a candidate).
At the risk of sounding uncharacteristically bitter, I believe that the penultimate thing on their minds is providing American citizens with facts that can be used to debate a controversial topic.
It says something that the asshats at TMZ.com demonstrate a higher level of inquiry and provide better examples of careful discussion of the day's events than established news outlets.
Green Light
04-08-2010, 14:52
IMHO, an enemy combatant is an enemy combatant, independent of citizenship. Keep in mind, however unlikely, that he can surrender and will be afforded all the due process privileges in a civil criminal court. The choice is his.
Actually, without a white flag of surrender or some such device, the choice really isn't his. It will be the choice of the QP who will make the split second decision whether to put the habeas grabas on him or put two quick shots center of mass.
He has attempted killing Americans as a combatant of a foreign power. He pledges no allegiance to our nation or way of life. He is an enemy of freedom. He would subjugate us as infidels and try us for our lives for infractions such as disagreeing with him. The trial would, unfortunately, be a formality with the verdict never in doubt.
We are fighting against a transnational enemy that wants to rule the world. Just as the Nazis, Japanese, and Soviets before them. There may seem to be a lull in the fight right now (outside of Afghanistan), but the dark clouds are on the horizon. YMMV
Dozer523
04-08-2010, 15:58
It is not a HIT. The order is to capture or kill. . . . Dead Men Tell No Lies.......:eek: Looks like one, walks like one, quacks like one. . . :)
Looks like one, walks like one, quacks like one. . . :)
OK OK You got me it is Duck Hunting:p
OK OK You got me it is Duck Hunting:p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14T5wzicqw
Verified...here is my source!
In this particular case, the possible killing of an enemy combatant became an act of "murder" or "assassination" thanks to the work of newspaper editors trying to boost sales and a blogger cherry picking facts to boost his "street cred" in Twitville
IMO, the fourth estate is turning an increasingly critical eye on the current president because (a) the media have an increasingly testy relationship with the White House and (b) the media are trying to ride the crest of the president's declining popularity (much the same way it sought to ride the crest of the man's rising popularity when he was pitching "hope" and "change" as a candidate).
This might be the key to this complete discussion.
Are we being manipulated by the 4th estate??
Or is Barry & crowd trying to goat main stream Americans into orchestrating his ascension to a dictatorship,, because there are TOO MANNY AMERICANS PLOTTING AGAINST AMERICA-BHO-ME-Barry-USA (all terms interchangeable)!!!
One of his community organizer quote(s): "The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people(himself). (Saul Alinsky 1946: 23)
At the risk of sounding uncharacteristically bitter, I believe that the PRIMARY(penultimate) thing on their minds is providing American citizens with RUMORS(facts) that can WILL(be) used to INSTIGATE(debate) a COMPLAISANT(controversial) TAKE OVER (topic).
Just changed a few words... :cool::D
Dozer523
04-09-2010, 06:37
My respectful question for the sheepdogs, clearly if you harm a sheep you are now a wolf, but for those who confront wolves with extreme prejudice, god bless you, but isn't there a line you don't ever cross at the risk of becoming a wolf yourself? When it's murder.
When there is "Collateral damage" that should be avoided. (for example: when it is determined, with deliberation, a target is "worth" the loss of the innocent in the wrong place/time.) Well, Someone is supposed to think about it . . .
Maybe that doesn't make you a wolf right away but it might get those genes tingling.
Dozer523
04-09-2010, 07:47
Right, my thoughts exactly -- doesn't the fact that he has committed treasonous acts make him an enemy of the state, and therefore strip him of his citizenship? I need to Google. Well, NOW I'm really not too crazy about it! Now we are drifting toward a category called "Enemy of the State". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qznsf0i1wQt
"It's not paranoia if they're really after you."
Right, my thoughts exactly
-- doesn't the fact that he has committed treasonous acts
Define: "I post negative BHO comments to the web"
make him an enemy of the state
Define: "BHO doses not like my comments posted to the web"
Nixon had a list of "enemies of the state"
DEFINE using the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights..
In combat, if you shoot at me I will return fire,, I may be opportunistically empowered and shoot you first..
Hit lists are for spooks... "I'm James B, and I have a license to kill"
We may not need or want a bright-line test but someone better set some balancing test(s), so us poor peons can understand what is being implemented.
As of now, It is scary, very scary..:eek::eek:
Not because I have any empathy for this POS,
but because I don't know how to tell the good guy from the bad.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/08/threats-congress-increase-threefold/
Threats Against Congress Increase Threefold, AP
WASHINGTON -- Ranging from vulgar language to talk of murder, threats against senators and representatives nearly tripled in recent months as the health care overhaul sparked public anger, The Washington Post reported.
House and Senate lawmakers reported 42 threats from January to March, compared with 15 in the last three months of 2009, Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance W. Gainer said in a story posted on the newspaper's Web site late Thursday. Nearly all the threats, including at least three that led to arrests, appeared to come from people who opposed the health care bill Democrats championed and President Barack Obama signed into law last month.
Most of the threats were aimed at members of the House, said Gainer, the former chief of the U.S. Capitol Police.
"The incidents ranged from very vulgar to serious threats, including death threats," he said. "The ability to carry them out is another question and part of an investigation to determine what, if any, appropriate steps to take."
A man has been charged in San Francisco with making dozens of threatening calls to the home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and to her husband's office.
A man arrested near Yakima, Wash., has been charged with leaving threatening messages at the office of Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
In Philadelphia, a man has been charged with threatening in a YouTube video to kill Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., and his family.
And the list grows exponentially...
Objection - badgering, your honor. :rolleyes:
Actually, without a white flag of surrender or some such device, the choice really isn't his. It will be the choice of the QP who will make the split second decision whether to put the habeas grabas on him or put two quick shots center of mass.
Of course. Once the boys enter the room he won’t have any time to make that choice, thus the choice will be made for him. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
The trial would, unfortunately, be a formality with the verdict never in doubt.
Concur.
armymom1228
04-09-2010, 10:00
Quote:
In my opinion, at some point, a person committing treasonous acts becomes an actual enemy of the state, and is no longer to be afforded the rights of citizenship(i.e. due process, right to jury, etc). I would think this determination must be made on a case-by-case basis; I would have a hard time articulating a "bright-line test" to be used in every case.
Right, my thoughts exactly -- doesn't the fact that he has committed treasonous acts make him an enemy of the state, and therefore strip him of his citizenship? I need to Google.
That all depends on due process. You just cannot simply strip someones citizenship because you or I don't like thier actions. If that was the case Joe McCarthy and his friends would have done so many times over. The right of due process is fundamental to our justice system to give each and every one of us a fair chance to defend ourselves, no matter how hienous the act we might commit.
Richard Nixon had an enemy of the state list...there was a reason that guy resigend and it wasn't to go home to Key Biscayne.
Are we being manipulated by the 4th estate??
JJ? You are asking that.... lol.... One only has to review the news clips from the fall of 2008 it is abundantly clear that the MSM of both sides has ceased to report the news in any vague sense of unbias and stepped it up a notch to manipulate the proletariat to thier own agdenda.
Originally Posted by Green Light
The trial would, unfortunately, be a formality with the verdict never in doubt.
True, however, we would have gone through the process. If we remove one citizens right to due process, we run the risk of another's being trampled on. Our sytem of justice dating back what, a thousand yrs, is based on that one principle.
However, this one individual could lay claim that he was not given a 'trial by a jury of his peers' as his peers are all terrorists. :munchin
AM
AM
armymom1228
04-09-2010, 10:07
Negative BHO comments is a lot different from threatening someone with bodily injury -- I think that's a fairly bright line test.
Well that depends... it is ALL in the perception. One only has to view some of the comments that have come out of the White House with regards to the comments made by Fox News.
The term term THREAT, in a legal sense can be argued down more than few lines of thoughts to different outcomes.
Personally - I wouldn't call it an 'assassination' - I'd call it 'carrying out an execution of a murderer convicted of a federal crime' - just sayin'...
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
armymom1228
04-09-2010, 11:46
Personally - I wouldn't call it an 'assassination' - I'd call it 'carrying out an execution of a murderer convicted of a federal crime' - just sayin'...
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
succint as always. :lifter
AM
ZonieDiver
04-09-2010, 11:56
Objection - badgering, your honor. :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBc5b5M0_Xw
GratefulCitizen
04-09-2010, 19:43
Objection - badgering, your honor. :rolleyes:
That's not badgering.
This is badgering: http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
That's not badgering.
This is badgering: http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/Geoff Peterson and the robot skeleton army have nothing on this!
The problem is that it is utterly non-sensical that we could issue an edict to have this guy killed/captured; but we cannot listen in to his phone conversations should he call a buddy of his here state-side.
Yes, that is absurd.
dr. mabuse
04-11-2010, 12:47
*
Team Sergeant
04-11-2010, 15:08
Curious to hear your thoughts on this one:
• http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
There's no "gray" area here. And I don't care where he/she from, as a terrorist, coward, combatant and idiot as soon as he declared himself "an enemy of the USA" IMO he signed his own death warrant. And I'd be more than happy to collect on that warrant, anywhere in the world.;)
I've reviewed the original article again.
If El Wacki is involved in plots, then it seems reasonable to delete him. I can see how that involvement transforms him into an enemy combatant.
Addressing his advocacy of such actions is more problematic; as the article points out, such speech has, historically, been regarded as protected under the constitution. Without doubt, he is guilty of advocating attacks on U.S. targets; however his actual involvement in plots appears to be in dispute.
If we want to eliminate someone for what they have said, that could lead down some dark paths - although, in some instances, perhaps it is worthwhile.
On the other hand, if involvement is the line in the sand, then we have a question of due process - because whoever makes the determination of involvement has an implied authority to invoke the death penalty. Whoever wields that power has the opportunity to go down other dark paths - especially since there is no review of their actions.
I cannot help wondering how many people could use such power and not be corrupted by it. Removing this particular malefactor will probably make the world a better place; but I wonder how the policy will evolve over time.
I am reminded of an exchange from a play, "A Man for All Seasons".
Quote:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Team Sergeant
04-12-2010, 21:36
I agree with you TS but I find it funny that the big O insists on giving the foreign born dirtbags a fair trial with all the lawyers etc yet a us born dirt bag gets whacked :confused: Don't get me wrong, if I had the guy in my crosshairs I would shoot but it just incosistant the way this idiot ramdomly makes decisions. Where is MSNBC's outrage? you know they would throw a hiss fit if Bush did the same thing.
I'm not going to say I understand why our socialist leader desires terrorists protection under our laws, it's beyond me.