Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Valerie]

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.

He had ample opportunity for his due process as he was well aware of formal legal proceedings against him... He CHOSE the path to his own death instead.

 

[Amelia]

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.

He had ample opportunity for his due process as he was well aware of formal legal proceedings against him... He CHOSE the path to his own death instead.

What formal legal proceedings?

Not that merely initiating legal proceedings would be enough to justify a death sentence, but what formal legal proceedings are you referring to?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What the government did was kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activaty. Now if you can get that to pass the constitution you might have an argument.

 

[Liability]

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.

What the government did was kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activaty. Now if you can get that to pass the constitution you might have an argument.

No. He was an absolutely known quantity. We know what he preached and who he recruited. We know he had a measure of "success" as defined by him and his filthy murderous ilk.

Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war. The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an American doesn't change what he was at the root of it all: a leader of the enemy in time of war.

 

[Valerie]

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



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.

He had ample opportunity for his due process as he was well aware of formal legal proceedings against him... He CHOSE the path to his own death instead.

What formal legal proceedings?

Not that merely initiating legal proceedings would be enough to justify a death sentence, but what formal legal proceedings are you referring to?

First of all, there were several legal proceedings where witness testimony was held against him on the record as well as testimony before congress and before a federal judge. He openly admitted his intentions of killing innocent American citizens to which there are numerous witnesses. Posted in the thread earlier, there was federal case that was thrown out of court... His father tried to challenge US authority against him and the court ruled the father had no standing to file for his son (though he could have filed for himself) so he was well aware of the charges against him yet he chose to remain at large anyway. He hid away from his opportunity for due process and chose to be, not only an unlawful enemy combatant against his country, but an inspirational leader to all other unlawful enemy combatants against the USA.

Do you think in the previously cited two other occurrences in our history of armed rebellion against our country that each of the dead citizens received their due process before being shot in the face by George Washington...?

 

[Amelia]

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.

What the government did was kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activaty. Now if you can get that to pass the constitution you might have an argument.

No. He was an absolutely known quantity. We know what he preached and who he recruited. We know he had a measure of "success" as defined by him and his filthy murderous ilk.

Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war. The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an Aemrican doesn't change what he was at the root of it all: a leader of the enemy in time of war.

If/since he was a known quantity it should not have been hard to get a conviction.

If it would have been hard to get a conviction then there was something wrong with our intel and that would have been grounds to proceed with greater caution.

Our constitution didn't apply to Goebbels. It did apply to Awlaki. At least it should have.


Now I don't know who it applies to. Where is the line now?

 

[Dune]

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.

You made the statement, you have to prove it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What the government did was kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activaty. Now if you can get that to pass the constitution you might have an argument.

No. He was an absolutely known quantity. We know what he preached and who he recruited. We know he had a measure of "success" as defined by him and his filthy murderous ilk.

Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war. The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an Aemrican doesn't change what he was at the root of it all: a leader of the enemy in time of war.

We know? how do we know this? Has anyone ever heard him speak? Have they testified to it in a court of law?

Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war. The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an Aemrican doesn't change what he was at the root of it all: a leader of the enemy in time of war

Then the Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to you. An American citizen was killed by the government with mallious. You see thats the difference between me and most who say they will defend the constitution. I mean no matter who the American is and what they have done. They have due process and the Constitution on their side no matter what they have done. If it's wrong to thinnk that then the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper and doesn't mean a damn thing.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

For crying out loud... Mr. Pott, meet Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pott?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

We also had actionable intelligence that Iraq had WMD's where you one of those on the Bush beat down wagon whhen no WMD's were found?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What the government did was kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activaty. Now if you can get that to pass the constitution you might have an argument.

No. He was an absolutely known quantity. We know what he preached and who he recruited. We know he had a measure of "success" as defined by him and his filthy murderous ilk.

Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war. The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an Aemrican doesn't change what he was at the root of it all: a leader of the enemy in time of war.

If/since he was a known quantity it should not have been hard to get a conviction.

If it would have been hard to get a conviction then there was something wrong with our intel and that would have been grounds to proceed with greater caution.

Our constitution didn't apply to Goebbels. It did apply to Awlaki. At least it should have.


Now I don't know who it applies to. Where is the line now?

Now I don't know who it applies to. Where is the line now

Thats the road we are going down now. I forsee action taken on those that defend the constitution in a few more years. Since the nation did not take a stand against the violation.

 

[Amelia]

He had ample opportunity for his due process as he was well aware of formal legal proceedings against him... He CHOSE the path to his own death instead.

What formal legal proceedings?

Not that merely initiating legal proceedings would be enough to justify a death sentence, but what formal legal proceedings are you referring to?

First of all, there were several legal proceedings where witness testimony was held against him on the record as well as testimony before congress and before a federal judge. He openly admitted his intentions of killing innocent American citizens to which there are numerous witnesses. Posted in the thread earlier, there was federal case that was thrown out of court... His father tried to challenge US authority against him and the court ruled the father had no standing to file for his son (though he could have filed for himself) so he was well aware of the charges against him yet he chose to remain at large anyway. He hid away from his opportunity for due process and chose to be, not only an unlawful enemy combatant against his country, but an inspirational leader to all other unlawful enemy combatants against the USA.

Do you think in the previously cited two other occurrences in our history of armed rebellion against our country that each of the dead soldiers received their due process before being shot in the face by George Washington...?

I suspect that you and I have a different idea of the meaning of "legal proceedings".

Please tell me when he was charged and invited to defend himself against those charges.


Nevermind, that was rhetorical request. I don't think he was so I don't think you can show it to me. I will be pleasantly surprised if you can. But I don't think he was.





As to your question about George Washington, (a) I would have to dig back through the thread to try to find out which instances you mean, (b) I have little doubt that the circumstances will turn out to be significantly different from the case of Awlaki, and (c) Washington's actions more than 200 years ago would not be justification for violating the Constitution in this century. Just because we interned Americans of Japanese descent during WWII, that would not be an excuse to do something like that again in the future.

 

[Liability]

What the government did was kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activaty. Now if you can get that to pass the constitution you might have an argument.

No. He was an absolutely known quantity. We know what he preached and who he recruited. We know he had a measure of "success" as defined by him and his filthy murderous ilk.

Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war. The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an Aemrican doesn't change what he was at the root of it all: a leader of the enemy in time of war.

If/since he was a known quantity it should not have been hard to get a conviction.

If it would have been hard to get a conviction then there was something wrong with our intel and that would have been grounds to proceed with greater caution.

Our constitution didn't apply to Goebbels. It did apply to Awlaki. At least it should have.


Now I don't know who it applies to. Where is the line now?

It was not a criminal matter. We don't try leaders of the enemy any more because they happen to have been born in the United States than we'd try a fuckwad like Goebbels.

We don't look to "convict" the enemy in Courts of law. We look to defeat them in war.

Our Constitution does not apply to any person who is waging war against us. Such a person is not covered by the 5th or 6th Amendment. The reality is much more basic and stark. The enemy in war has a right to die at our hands. Period.

 

[Dune]

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.

No, I am the classic party line liberal.
Valerie is a dumbass who makes repeated claims she cannot backup, then says it is someone else's job to disprove.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

No, I am the classic party line liberal.
Valerie is a dumbass who makes repeated claims she cannot backup, then says it is someone else's job to disprove.

There's a difference beteen the classical modern day liberal and the classical liberal. Two totally differant type of liberals.

 

[Amelia]

No. He was an absolutely known quantity. We know what he preached and who he recruited. We know he had a measure of "success" as defined by him and his filthy murderous ilk.

Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war. The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an Aemrican doesn't change what he was at the root of it all: a leader of the enemy in time of war.

If/since he was a known quantity it should not have been hard to get a conviction.

If it would have been hard to get a conviction then there was something wrong with our intel and that would have been grounds to proceed with greater caution.

Our constitution didn't apply to Goebbels. It did apply to Awlaki. At least it should have.


Now I don't know who it applies to. Where is the line now?

It was not a criminal matter. We don't try leaders of the enemy any more because they happen to have been born in the United States than we'd try a fuckwad like Goebbels.

We don't look to "convict" the enemy in Courts of law. We look to defeat them in war.

Our Constitution does not apply to any person who is waging war against us. Such a person is not covered by the 5th or 6th Amendment. The reality is much more basic and stark. The enemy in war has a right to die at our hands. Period.

Wow.

You trust a politician who is trying to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with to decide which American citizens are enemies and sentence them to death without charges or trial?

Wow wow wow.




You have totally missed the point of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Ropey]

Citizens in the act of terrorizing the country in which they are citizens and are doing so from the protection of distance and foreign powers.

Damned Right I Am For Assassinating Them at that distance and protection!

Not in the US. Arrest them then as they should have earlier. They've learned...

 

[Xchel]

You asked and here is your demand Intense..

https://occupywallst.org/

Cornel West Encourages the Wall Street Protests to Call for Revolution as the Elite Tremble | Video | TheBlaze.com

DON’T BE SCARED TO SAY REVOLUTION’: CORNEL WEST ENCOURAGES THE WALL STREET PROTESTS TO CALL FOR REVOLUTION AS THE ELITE TREMBLE

 

[Valerie]

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.

No, I am the classic party line liberal.
Valerie is a dumbass who makes repeated claims she cannot backup, then says it is someone else's job to disprove.

I have backed up each of my posts, liar. I can't help it if you aren't smart enough to discern what an individual poster on a message board couldn't possibly PROVE in defense of US Government action at this point. We shall see how the courts decide, hmm?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If/since he was a known quantity it should not have been hard to get a conviction.

If it would have been hard to get a conviction then there was something wrong with our intel and that would have been grounds to proceed with greater caution.

Our constitution didn't apply to Goebbels. It did apply to Awlaki. At least it should have.


Now I don't know who it applies to. Where is the line now?

It was not a criminal matter. We don't try leaders of the enemy any more because they happen to have been born in the United States than we'd try a fuckwad like Goebbels.

We don't look to "convict" the enemy in Courts of law. We look to defeat them in war.

Our Constitution does not apply to any person who is waging war against us. Such a person is not covered by the 5th or 6th Amendment. The reality is much more basic and stark. The enemy in war has a right to die at our hands. Period.

Wow.

You trust a politician who is trying to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with to decide which American citizens are enemies and sentence them to death without charges or trial?

Wow wow wow.




You have totally missed the point of the Bill of Rights.

People from both side will make that road to tryanny so much eacier for the government.
It is my opinion that those who defend the Constitution will be the next on the hit list, and we all cheered because to government made us feel safe doing it.