Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Liability]

What a stupid question. It is not about 'assassinating American citizens', it IS all about defending the nation. Period. This 'American citizen' declared war on his own country, and actively worked for this nation's enemy to render harm upon us. Taking out the enemy's military leaders is an ACCEPTED action. Generals and admirals of the opposing sides were routinely targeted in WWII and conflicts afterwards. Gen. Schwarzkopf had round-the-clock protection to prevent enemies from hurting or capturing him during the First Gulf War. This clown was an enemy combatant. he was fair game, just like Bin Laden was! Good riddance, and good shooting people!

Here's a relevant question I have: why is the 'underwear bomber' not at Gitmo? Why is he being tried in a civilian court?

They don't have his special style of panties at Gitmo?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

>


Now some people know what its like to be the ALCU when they fight in court for something on principal like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religoin, anti-discrimination - even when the person they are defending is (or was) a total scum bag.



>>>>

No one that I know in this discussion was defending the person. they were and are defending his rights.

Yep, just like the ACLU defending a persons rights and not defending a person.

which most if not should have been doing that

I stand fully in support of Awlaki having his due process rights protected, if he had turned himself in and been detained for trial - fully support that.

However this was not a criminal case is was military action as part of an ongoing war with actions authorized under the Constitution Article I Section 8.



>>>>

A few lawyers have defended guilty people because of due process.

 

[Liability]

No one that I know in this discussion was defending the person. they were and are defending his rights.

Yep, just like the ACLU defending a persons rights and not defending a person.

which most if not should have been doing that

I stand fully in support of Awlaki having his due process rights protected, if he had turned himself in and been detained for trial - fully support that.

However this was not a criminal case is was military action as part of an ongoing war with actions authorized under the Constitution Article I Section 8.



>>>>

A few lawyers have defended guilty people because of due process.

A few apples have fallen from a few trees over the course of history.

It's true, but not responsive or especially meaningful.

Of COURSE some lawyers have defended guilty people.

What does that have to do with the point that this isn't a LEGAL matter at all?

This is a military matter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think most people would have felt better if the legal route was taken.
But war is messy and shitty and sometimes the opportunities have to be taken when they present themselves.
Obviously the WH and their advisors felt that they were on defendable ground with their actions and that the greater good was served by the suspension of any notion of due process for this guy.
If they had filed a charge against him then he would most likely have been able to carry on his activities for ever as he would have been unlikely to be captured and he would have been immune from a strike.
The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe.

The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe

Actually it's first priority is to insure all citizens rights are protected, but since 9/11/2001 that was thrown away for some safety.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep, just like the ACLU defending a persons rights and not defending a person.



I stand fully in support of Awlaki having his due process rights protected, if he had turned himself in and been detained for trial - fully support that.

However this was not a criminal case is was military action as part of an ongoing war with actions authorized under the Constitution Article I Section 8.



>>>>

A few lawyers have defended guilty people because of due process.

A few apples have fallen from a few trees over the course of history.

It's true, but not responsive or especially meaningful.

Of COURSE some lawyers have defended guilty people.

What does that have to do with the point that this isn't a LEGAL matter at all?

This is a military matter.

I give up just hope this doesn't bite you in the ass.

 

[Liability]

A few lawyers have defended guilty people because of due process.

A few apples have fallen from a few trees over the course of history.

It's true, but not responsive or especially meaningful.

Of COURSE some lawyers have defended guilty people.

What does that have to do with the point that this isn't a LEGAL matter at all?

This is a military matter.

I give up just hope this doesn't bite you in the ass.

I am sure it could bite us in the ass.

I am just as sure that disallowing it, as you recommend, also could seriously bite us in the ass, and abdomen, and chest and neck....

 

[Liability]

I think most people would have felt better if the legal route was taken.
But war is messy and shitty and sometimes the opportunities have to be taken when they present themselves.
Obviously the WH and their advisors felt that they were on defendable ground with their actions and that the greater good was served by the suspension of any notion of due process for this guy.
If they had filed a charge against him then he would most likely have been able to carry on his activities for ever as he would have been unlikely to be captured and he would have been immune from a strike.
The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe.

The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe

Actually it's first priority is to insure all citizens rights are protected, but since 9/11/2001 that was thrown away for some safety.

The first job of OUR government is NOT to protect our rights. The FIRST job of our government is to protect our physical security.

The rights which you claim the government must protect are really OUR rights to protect. This is why -- institutionally -- we are content to mistrust government. I thought that was a basis of your expressed concerns, in fact.

But just as the Constitution set up a government designed to help curb the tendencies of government to over-reach and to transgress our individual rights and liberties, so too the Founders and the Framers were not a bunch of idiots. They ALSO tried to create a government that -- while institutionally limited and checked -- was ALSO capable of doing the very things we create governments TO do.

They tried to strike a BALANCE.

The idea that we should SO TOTALLY HOBBLE the government from exercising any power (out of fear that Governments are run by people who might misuse power) that it cannot even do the very things we ask governments to do would NOT be consistent with the design and goals of the Founders and the Framers.

 

[Valerie]

A few apples have fallen from a few trees over the course of history.

It's true, but not responsive or especially meaningful.

Of COURSE some lawyers have defended guilty people.

What does that have to do with the point that this isn't a LEGAL matter at all?

This is a military matter.

I give up just hope this doesn't bite you in the ass.

I am sure it could bite us in the ass.

I am just as sure that disallowing it, as you recommend, also could seriously bit us in the ass, and abdomen, and chest and neck....

That's the thing... Slippery slopes can go both ways...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think most people would have felt better if the legal route was taken.
But war is messy and shitty and sometimes the opportunities have to be taken when they present themselves.
Obviously the WH and their advisors felt that they were on defendable ground with their actions and that the greater good was served by the suspension of any notion of due process for this guy.
If they had filed a charge against him then he would most likely have been able to carry on his activities for ever as he would have been unlikely to be captured and he would have been immune from a strike.
The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe.

The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe

Actually it's first priority is to insure all citizens rights are protected, but since 9/11/2001 that was thrown away for some safety.

The first job of OUR government is NOT to protect our rights. The FIRST job of our government is to protect our physical security.

The rights which you claim the government must protect are really OUR rights to protect. This is why -- institutionally -- we are content to mistrust government. I thought that was a basis of your expressed concerns, in fact.

But just as the Constitution set up a government designed to help curb the tendencies of government to over-reach and to transgress our individual rights and liberties, so too the Founders and the Framers were not a bunch of idiots. They ALSO tried to create a government that -- while institutionally limited and checked -- was ALSO capable of doing the very things we create governments TO do.

They tried to strike a BALANCE.

The idea that we should SO TOTALLY HOBBLE the government from exercising any power (out of fear that Governments are run by people who might misuse power) that it cannot even do the very things we ask governments to do would NOT be consistent with the design and goals of the Founders and the Framers.

protecting right's and keep us safe go hand in hand, but keeping us safe should not be so restrictive that it restricts individual rights. Thats why we have a Constitution that tell the government what it can and cannot do, and a bill of rights that are protected.

 

[Liability]

Actually it's first priority is to insure all citizens rights are protected, but since 9/11/2001 that was thrown away for some safety.

The first job of OUR government is NOT to protect our rights. The FIRST job of our government is to protect our physical security.

The rights which you claim the government must protect are really OUR rights to protect. This is why -- institutionally -- we are content to mistrust government. I thought that was a basis of your expressed concerns, in fact.

But just as the Constitution set up a government designed to help curb the tendencies of government to over-reach and to transgress our individual rights and liberties, so too the Founders and the Framers were not a bunch of idiots. They ALSO tried to create a government that -- while institutionally limited and checked -- was ALSO capable of doing the very things we create governments TO do.

They tried to strike a BALANCE.

The idea that we should SO TOTALLY HOBBLE the government from exercising any power (out of fear that Governments are run by people who might misuse power) that it cannot even do the very things we ask governments to do would NOT be consistent with the design and goals of the Founders and the Framers.

protecting right's and keep us safe go hand in hand, but keeping us safe should not be so restrictive that it restricts individual rights. Thats why we have a Constitution that tell the government what it can and cannot do, and a bill of rights that are protected.

They do not protect our rights. WE protect our rights. We set our government up in part to make sure that WE don't have to rely on them to protect our rights.

Protecting us is NOT restrictive. There's the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the Merchant Marine and there's the FBI and other law enforcement agencies of the Federal Government and there are cops and other law enforcement agencies of the states as well as localities. And there are the Courts.

The Constitution delineates the boundaries. But WE tell them what they can and cannot do.

When WE snuff out a leader of the enemy of ours in time of war, such as we have been in, what rights of ours have been restricted?

HIS might have been a little impacted. Fuck him. He made his choice and he can live (and die) with the consequences. But eradicating him as a leader of the enemy is not interfering with ANY of our rights. In fact, it serves to help make my rights more secure.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The first job of OUR government is NOT to protect our rights. The FIRST job of our government is to protect our physical security.

The rights which you claim the government must protect are really OUR rights to protect. This is why -- institutionally -- we are content to mistrust government. I thought that was a basis of your expressed concerns, in fact.

But just as the Constitution set up a government designed to help curb the tendencies of government to over-reach and to transgress our individual rights and liberties, so too the Founders and the Framers were not a bunch of idiots. They ALSO tried to create a government that -- while institutionally limited and checked -- was ALSO capable of doing the very things we create governments TO do.

They tried to strike a BALANCE.

The idea that we should SO TOTALLY HOBBLE the government from exercising any power (out of fear that Governments are run by people who might misuse power) that it cannot even do the very things we ask governments to do would NOT be consistent with the design and goals of the Founders and the Framers.

protecting right's and keep us safe go hand in hand, but keeping us safe should not be so restrictive that it restricts individual rights. Thats why we have a Constitution that tell the government what it can and cannot do, and a bill of rights that are protected.

They do not protect our rights. WE protect our rights. We set our government up in part to make sure that WE don't have to rely on them to protect our rights.

Protecting us is NOT restrictive. There's the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the Merchant Marine and there's the FBI and other law enforcement agencies of the Federal Government and there are cops and other law enforcement agencies of the states as well as localities. And there are the Courts.

The Constitution delineates the boundaries. But WE tell them what they can and cannot do.

When WE snuff out a leader of the enemy of ours in time of war, such as we have been in, what rights of ours have been restricted?

HIS might have been a little impacted. Fuck him. He made his choice and he can live (and die) with the consequences. But eradicating him as a leader of the enemy is not interfering with ANY of our rights. In fact, it serves to help make my rights more secure.

Not this time it is the government job to protect the rights of individuals thats why the fed was created in the first place.

 

[rdean]

I'm for assassinating self declared terrorists.

Undeclared are those that want to destroy the American Middle Class.

 

[whitehall]

I'm for assassinating self declared terrorists.

Undeclared are those that want to destroy the American Middle Class.

Scuse be but I think Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were self declared terrorists. Does the offer still go?

 

[Si modo]

I'm for assassinating self declared terrorists.

Undeclared are those that want to destroy the American Middle Class.

Scuse be but I think Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were self declared terrorists. Does the offer still go?

Why yes, yes they are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm for assassinating self declared terrorists.

Undeclared are those that want to destroy the American Middle Class.

Rdean just wrote his suicide note. he's part of the terrorist group that wants to destroy the middle class..

 

[Liability]

protecting right's and keep us safe go hand in hand, but keeping us safe should not be so restrictive that it restricts individual rights. Thats why we have a Constitution that tell the government what it can and cannot do, and a bill of rights that are protected.

They do not protect our rights. WE protect our rights. We set our government up in part to make sure that WE don't have to rely on them to protect our rights.

Protecting us is NOT restrictive. There's the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the Merchant Marine and there's the FBI and other law enforcement agencies of the Federal Government and there are cops and other law enforcement agencies of the states as well as localities. And there are the Courts.

The Constitution delineates the boundaries. But WE tell them what they can and cannot do.

When WE snuff out a leader of the enemy of ours in time of war, such as we have been in, what rights of ours have been restricted?

HIS might have been a little impacted. Fuck him. He made his choice and he can live (and die) with the consequences. But eradicating him as a leader of the enemy is not interfering with ANY of our rights. In fact, it serves to help make my rights more secure.

Not this time it is the government job to protect the rights of individuals thats why the fed was created in the first place.

Wrong. It is the job of the government primarily to secure our safety and the civil society.

It was and it remains OUR job to protect our own rights.

The snuffing of a leader of the enemy (especially that kind of enemy) is absolutely something which serves to make my rights more secure.

None of our other rights exist without the right to be alive. Rubbing out that miserable enemy leader sonofabitch serves to increase the odds that all of us will have a longer life. Thus, all of our other rights have also been made more secure.

I can't stand President Obama, but there comes a time when you must give the devil his due. I still applaud the decision he made to permit the CIA to get al-Awlaki.

Good job.