Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Intense]

Treason, with strong Purpose, and by design, is very hard to convict on.

 

[Amelia]

This poll is helping to restore my faith in my fellow Americans.

When I started the poll, I felt very much in the minority. It took two days for the numbers to even out but now 50% of the respondents are against or uncertain about targeting an American citizen for death without bringing charges against him first.

This gives me more hope for the future of our Constitution.

We still have to face the reality of the precedent which was set but I am very grateful that people here and across the nation are taking this seriously.

 

[Valerie]

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's

He preached non violence and a change in government through the system. Malcolm X preached violence.

By the Washington "Precedent", MLK would have been left alone while Malcolm X would have been imprisoned.

Again with all the hypotheticals which in fact did not happen.


Yeah, precedent matters indeed..


In answering the question Xcel asked..Where in the Constitution does it say...I merely responded with some historical facts.

Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

 

[Dune]

When they join a terrorist organization and take up arms against and plot to kill Americans...
Why is this even a question?

I don't know, Rozman. We have some sensitive people who aren't sure an American can be an enemy when he coordinates amenities for 9/11 hijackers (3 of them) which results in the deaths of 3,000 Americans, and his phone cell calls implicate him in every terrorist attack and wannabe terrorist attackon American soil that's happened in the past few years. I think the last straw may have been the Fort Hood incident when the shooter contacted him several times before actually committing the treason and murders against 12 fellow Americans.

Some are confused about whether to try this moron in court first or just take him out. Why give these terrorists a soapbox when they've already taken out thousands of Americans and want a bigger, bloodier tally yet plus the bonus of cry towelling the people of this nation which could get really divisive and nastier than it already is.

We are a nation governed by the rule of law.
The Bill Of Rights specific purpose is to limit the powers of the federal government.
A trial would not have been a soapbox for a terrorist, for two reasons;
1. It would have been a secret trial.
2. He would have been tried in absentia.

Do you think this is the first time adhereing to the Constitution was inconvenient?

You can't imagine the doors of opportunity this action and the general public's acceptance of it have opened for government abuse of power.

This is no longer a slippery slope, but a slimy pit.

 

[Amelia]

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

There is a difference between responding to violent action with violence and specifically marking a specific citizen for death without formally filing charges against him.

 

[Dune]

Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!

Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!

No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.

Prove it.

Post these laws which directly contradict the 5th ammendment.

 

[Valerie]

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

There is a difference between responding to violent action with violence and specifically marking a specific citizen for death without formally filing charges against him.

The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...

 

[Intense]

According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!

Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!

No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.

Prove it.

Post these laws which directly contradict the 5th ammendment.

I Hope the Action was Justified, I assume it was Legal, even if we are not privy to the technicalities. There is Precedence, and there are Special Powers, and there is due process. No way, this wasn't signed off on.

 

[Dune]

What precedence?
Cite?
As far as I know, every president who has tried to assume special powers during wartime has been rebuked afterwards.

 

[Valerie]

According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!

Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!

No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.

Prove it.

Post these laws which directly contradict the 5th ammendment.

No, YOU need to prove the US Government abused it's authority by killing a KNOWN terrorist leader who was KNOWN to preach Jihad against the USA.

 

[Intense]

What precedence?
Cite?
As far as I know, every president who has tried to assume special powers during wartime has been rebuked afterwards.

We will see soon enough. I predict he will come out untouched, but wiser. This was not done out in the open, by accident. It could been done differently and avoided this. You have a valid argument, I'm not arguing against that. We in the end are dealing with checks and balances, at least until the time that we totally abandon them. I suspect that there were Members of both Branches of Congress and The Court, that were in the loop.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...

All of which is irrelevant as a justification of suspension of due process.

No, YOU need to prove the US Government abused it's authority by killing a KNOWN terrorist leader who was KNOWN to preach Jihad against the USA.

I don’t know about the poster to whom you’re responding, but I have cited both Constitutional case law and Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requiring due process for those accused of being enemy combatants and/or accused of treason.

Consequently: it’s incumbent upon you to cite case law justifying suspension of due process per the criteria you’ve noted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...

All of which is irrelevant as a justification of suspension of due process.

No, YOU need to prove the US Government abused it's authority by killing a KNOWN terrorist leader who was KNOWN to preach Jihad against the USA.

I don’t know about the poster to whom you’re responding, but I have cited both Constitutional case law and Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requiring due process for those accused of being enemy combatants and/or accused of treason.

Consequently: it’s incumbent upon you to cite case law justifying suspension of due process per the criteria you’ve noted.

Satan has just reserved round trip ticket to hawaii to escape cold spell in hell. We agree.

 

[Ravi]

Some of you people are mighty stupid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's

He preached non violence and a change in government through the system. Malcolm X preached violence.

By the Washington "Precedent", MLK would have been left alone while Malcolm X would have been imprisoned.

Again with all the hypotheticals which in fact did not happen.


Yeah, precedent matters indeed..


In answering the question Xcel asked..Where in the Constitution does it say...I merely responded with some historical facts.

Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Three years ago you would have said this was unconstitutional and we would agree but now you think it's the right thing to do. Why the change......oh never mind I know why the CHANGE. It's something you might believe in if it ever hapopened.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some of you people are mighty stupid.

We agree.

 

[Amelia]

Some of you people are mighty stupid.

The list of "stupid" Americans might be quite long and interesting before all is said and done about this topic.

I am impressed by and proud of the people who are coming forth in defense of the Constitution.

I am vastly surprised to find myself on the same side as Rachel Maddow and on a different side from Dick Cheney.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some of you people are mighty stupid.

The list of "stupid" Americans might be quite long and interesting before all is said and done about this topic.

I am impressed by and proud of the people who are coming forth in defense of the Constitution.

I am vastly surprised to find myself on the same side as Rachel Maddow and on a different side from Dick Cheney.

Why have a Constitution if you aren't going to follow it? It's supposed to protect rights not be used to hinder them.

 

[Valerie]

He preached non violence and a change in government through the system. Malcolm X preached violence.

By the Washington "Precedent", MLK would have been left alone while Malcolm X would have been imprisoned.

Again with all the hypotheticals which in fact did not happen.


Yeah, precedent matters indeed..


In answering the question Xcel asked..Where in the Constitution does it say...I merely responded with some historical facts.

Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Three years ago you would have said this was unconstitutional and we would agree but now you think it's the right thing to do. Why the change......oh never mind I know why the CHANGE. It's something you might believe in if it ever hapopened.

Don't pretend to know what I hypothetically thought 3 yrs ago, mister mini militiaman.




La la la la la la laaaand............

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again with all the hypotheticals which in fact did not happen.


Yeah, precedent matters indeed..


In answering the question Xcel asked..Where in the Constitution does it say...I merely responded with some historical facts.











How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Three years ago you would have said this was unconstitutional and we would agree but now you think it's the right thing to do. Why the change......oh never mind I know why the CHANGE. It's something you might believe in if it ever hapopened.

Don't pretend to know what I hypothetically thought 3 yrs ago, mister mini militiaman.




La la la la la la laaaand............

I am not pretending one bit. You are the classical modern day liberal party line dumbass.