Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Liability]

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.

No. You have totally missed the point of the Constitution.

It is there to limit the authority of government. It is not now -- and never was -- intended to be a suicide pact. I know. I read the Court decision that said so.

The notion that we would be obligated to have the JUDICIAL Branch of government tell us when we may and when we may not attack a leader of the enemy at war with us is so absurd as to require people who "get" the point of the Constitution to sadly shake their heads.

All your "wows" don't change any of that.

The COURTS are limited in the scope of their Constitutional authority. And deciding the conduct of war, by and large, is not within their purview.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You forgot to cite your case law in support – although I can tell you there is none. Consequently this is incorrect.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

See what the courts decide? a slip of certain words interpreted the wrong way the courts can rule just about anyway they choose to. But will it destory due process, yes if it is ruled that this killing was legal.

 

[Valerie]

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.

In an 83-page opinion, Judge John D. Bates said Mr. Awlaki’s father, the plaintiff, had no standing to file the lawsuit on behalf of his son. He also said decisions about targeted killings in such circumstances were a “political question” for executive branch officials to make — not judges.

Judge Bates acknowledged that the case raised “stark, and perplexing, questions” — including whether the president could “order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization.”

But while the “legal and policy questions posed by this case are controversial and of great public interest,” he wrote, they would have to be resolved on another day and, probably, outside a courtroom. Judge Bates sits on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.



Judge Bates rejected the notion that his ruling granted the executive “unreviewable authority to order the assassination of any American whom he labels an enemy of the state.”

“The court only concludes that it lacks capacity to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an ‘operational member’ ” of Al Qaeda’s Yemen branch, “presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him,” Judge Bates said.

Robert Chesney, a University of Texas law professor, said the limits of Judge Bates’ conclusion would be a matter of dispute. He portrayed it as “a sweeping argument against judicial review of targeted killing decisions.”

“The slippery slope is obviously the concern here,” Mr. Chesney said. “Judge Bates is at pains not to decide this question for other circumstances. But the question remains, what else besides this fact pattern would enable the government to have the same result?”

Mr. Jaffer said no decision had been made about an appeal.


LiveLeak.com - Judge Won't Quash Al-Awlaki Kill Order

 

[Ropey]

I believe that this surgical strike will be found legal as a foreign extremist attack ie. surgical strike.

 

[Amelia]

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.

No. You have totally missed the point of the Constitution.

It is there to limit the authority of government. It is not now -- and never was -- intended to be a suicide pact. I know. I read the Court decision that said so.

The notion that we would be obligated to have the JUDICIAL Branch of government tell us when we may and when we may not attack a leader of the enemy at war with us is so absurd as to require people who "get" the point of the Constitution to sadly shake their heads.

All your "wows" don't change any of that.

The COURTS are limited in the scope of their Constitutional authority. And deciding the conduct of war, by and large, is not within their purview.

It would not be suicide to bring charges against a citizen before you specifically mark him for death.

The opposite is suicide. A can of poisonous worms. A pit of vipers. He could have been put on a watch list, a wanted list, any kind of list but not a death list without due process.

Freedom of speech doesn't only apply to speech you like.

The fifth amendment obviously doesn't only apply to saints.

Awlaki did not pose an imminent threat. He was a propagandist. There was plenty of time to bring charges against him and get a verdict and a sentence. If he ever did pose an imminent and active threat then it would have been appropriate to act without filing any more paperwork. But that was not the case here.

We put a citizen on an assassination list without first charging him and without inviting him to defend himself.


There's not much better word for that than "Wow".

 

[Valerie]

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?

See what the courts decide? a slip of certain words interpreted the wrong way the courts can rule just about anyway they choose to. But will it destory due process, yes if it is ruled that this killing was legal.

Yeah and if you are real lucky then YOU can feel justified in exacting your version of justice by shooting someone with your ol' Colt 45, eh?

 

[Valerie]

You know Amelia, I really do understand your argument and concerns about protecting due process for American citizens, which I can certainly appreciate, but ask yourself at what point do you take your head out of your hypothetical ideals and take a common sense approach to the unprecedented reality of the situation? The man openly admitted his violent intentions and evaded justice to the point of dying on his own terms.

If anyone has a case against the US Government in this action they are still free to file.

 

[idb]

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?

See what the courts decide? a slip of certain words interpreted the wrong way the courts can rule just about anyway they choose to. But will it destory due process, yes if it is ruled that this killing was legal.

So you don't accept court rulings on the constitution if they don't agree with your interpretation?

 

[Dune]

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?

I am not lying.
I have asked you repeatedly
to back up your claims, and each time you responded by saying I was the one who needed to disprove your claims.

Link to whre you provided any proof.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

See what the courts decide? a slip of certain words interpreted the wrong way the courts can rule just about anyway they choose to. But will it destory due process, yes if it is ruled that this killing was legal.

Yeah and if you are real lucky then YOU can feel justified in exacting your version of justice by shooting someone with your ol' Colt 45, eh?

I don't have a colt 45 but I have several 45 acp's. When there is an eminent threat of death or bodily harm shootings are justified.

 

[Amelia]

You know Amelia, I really do understand your argument and concerns about protecting due process for American citizens, which I can certainly appreciate, but ask yourself at what point do you take your head out of your hypothetical ideals and take a common sense approach to the unprecedented reality of the situation? The man openly admitted his violent intentions and evaded justice to the point of dying on his own terms.

If anyone has a case against the US Government in this action they are still free to file.

This isn't hypothetical ideals. This wasn't a split second decision. The administration had years to file charges and hold a trial but chose not to.

They created the unprecedented reality by not going through the motions of seeking a judgment against him. If this were a time-pressured decision based on the man posing an active threat to the nation that would have been vastly different, but it wasn't. They had plenty of time.

Where is the line now? They can now declare anyone an enemy of the state and condemn that person to death without trial. There was a clear line before - the man's citizenship giving him protection under the Bill of Rights. There is no line anymore.

 

[Valerie]

See what the courts decide? a slip of certain words interpreted the wrong way the courts can rule just about anyway they choose to. But will it destory due process, yes if it is ruled that this killing was legal.

Yeah and if you are real lucky then YOU can feel justified in exacting your version of justice by shooting someone with your ol' Colt 45, eh?

I don't have a colt 45 but I have several 45 acp's.




When there is an eminent threat of death or bodily harm shootings are justified.

That's the thing, my dear... Alwaki was an imminent threat. I'd like to see someone try to prove otherwise.

 

[Xchel]

prove to us he was an immenent threat...mind you an immenent threat would mean he would have to be on the battlefield shooting at someone not in the car driving to town..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah and if you are real lucky then YOU can feel justified in exacting your version of justice by shooting someone with your ol' Colt 45, eh?

I don't have a colt 45 but I have several 45 acp's.




When there is an eminent threat of death or bodily harm shootings are justified.

That's the thing, my dear... Alwaki was an imminent threat. I'd like to see someone try to prove otherwise.

A gang of thugs in action of a crime is eminent threat your eaxample according to the law is not.

 

[Intense]

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

I don't find anything about Armed Insurrection. Is that what you are referring to? West, in my book seems like a real Asshole. The type that get People hurt. I've seen allot of people in the past try to hi-jack protest's and movements. Checks and balances, and clear determined focus is needed by Organizers to counter that.

Anyone Inviting Violence or Insurrection, is worth ignoring, abandoning, and walking away from. If that is what is going on, the one's supporting it are bigger Idiots than I gave them credit for. That said, Anyone Supporting Non-Violent Protest, has a Right to Protest, Whether I agree with them or not.

Expose the insurrection for the ugly beast it is. Anyone busted for Inciting Riot or Insurrection, or Revolution, should face full force of the Law. Foreign Nationals, should be Expelled as soon as their sentences are done.

 

[Dune]

Yeah and if you are real lucky then YOU can feel justified in exacting your version of justice by shooting someone with your ol' Colt 45, eh?

I don't have a colt 45 but I have several 45 acp's.




When there is an eminent threat of death or bodily harm shootings are justified.

That's the thing, my dear... Alwaki was an imminent threat. I'd like to see someone try to prove otherwise.

Of course you'd like someone else to prove otherwise, since you have no intention of proving anything yourself.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal

Attorney Jim Gronquist calls the targeted airstrike a violation of both national and international law.

He says, “We have become what the terrorists were."

The former ACLU attorney says regardless of affiliation or deed Awlaki & Khan were entitled to due process, “We're not doing anything differently than killing people off without giving them fair trial."
Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal | Charlotte News | Weather | Carolina Panthers | Bobcats | FOX Charlotte | Local News

 

[Big Fitz]

Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal

Attorney Jim Gronquist calls the targeted airstrike a violation of both national and international law.

He says, “We have become what the terrorists were."

The former ACLU attorney says regardless of affiliation or deed Awlaki & Khan were entitled to due process, “We're not doing anything differently than killing people off without giving them fair trial."
Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal | Charlotte News | Weather | Carolina Panthers | Bobcats | FOX Charlotte | Local News

Oh whatever!

Proof positive you can find someone to say anything you need to 'prove' your point. The fact he's a lawyer means about as much as chicken shit on a pump handle.

 

[Valerie]

The Justification: How does the U.S. government have the right to target for killing a U.S. citizen?

Some of his career lowlights, according to the U.S. government, include the following operations:

* The U.S . government claims that Awlaki has tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction – specifically poisons such as cyanide and ricin – for use in attacking Westerners.

* Awlaki specifically directed Umar Faruq Abdulmutallab in December 2009 to detonate the “underwear” bomb on board a Christmas Day Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. The government said that Awlaki told Abdulmutallab to detonate the bomb while over U.S. airspace so as to maximize casualties.

* In October 2010, AQAP attempted to explode two U.S. cargo planes by detonating explosives hidden in ink cartridges mailed to synagogues in Chicago. The U.S. government said that Awlaki directly supervised this failed terrorist plot.

* In 2010, Awlaki communicated with Rajib Karim, then a British airlines worker, seeking a way to get a bomb aboard a plane at Heathrow Airport. Karim was convicted in March 2011 in a British court on terrorism charges, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The U.S. government also said Awlaki incited terrorism:

* In a May 2010 interview with “Al Qaeda Media,” Awlaki said he supported operations such as the failed Christmas Day bombing even though they target innocent civilians.

“With regard to the issue of ‘civilians,’ this term has become prevalent these days, but I prefer to use the terms employed by our jurisprudents. They classify people as either combatants or noncombatants,” he said. “My message to the Muslims in general, and to those in the Arabian Peninsula in particular, is that we should participate in this jihad against America.”

Awlaki said attacks against U.S .service members, such as those shot by Lt. Nidal Hasan, were perfectly valid: “How can we possibly oppose an operation like Nidal Hasan’s? He killed American soldiers on their way to Afghanistan and Iraq. Who could possibly oppose this?”

* The U.S. government blames Awlaki for “inspiring” terrorist attacks against the U.S., including Fort Hood shooter Hasan – who emailed with him, having attended some of Awlaki’s sermons in Virginia. Failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad claimed to have been “inspired by” Awlaki.

* In March 2010, Awlaki said in an audio message that “America is evil” and called for violence against the U.S. “With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said.

* Awlaki wrote several articles for INSPIRE magazine, published by AQAP, to justify terrorist attacks.

The U.S. government also notes that in January a Yemeni court sentenced Awlaki in absentia to ten years in prison for “forming an armed gang” to target foreigners and law enforcement personnel.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-us-case-against-awlaki/