Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[BlindBoo]

WW, there was also a time when we considered folks who sympathized with communism as damn near terrorists...would you have been ok with targeting them for assasination without trial? Remember those laws? All struck down by the US Supreme Court...it isn't against the law to have controversial speech or even speech against the government..it is against the law to act on those beliefs though...again I want to see at least an indictment before we take someone out with a sniper rifle.

If they we an opertive in foriegn organization that had killed thousands of Americans and was suspected in ongoing attempt to kill more. Yes I would be okay with that. By suspected I mean that the CIA had intel that this was the case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The judge went further in explaining why the challenge to the "targeted killing" program had to go away long before trial. Because it touched upon expert military judgments, he concluded, it was necessarily a "political question" that he was bound to allow the executive branch to answer first.

Through his lawsuit, Al-Aulaqi's father had asked the federal courts "to limit the circumstances under which the United States may employ lethal force against an individual abroad whom the Executive has determined 'plays an operational role in AQAP planning terrorist attacks against the United States.' "


This Judge Bates would not do. Why?


Because, he explained, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

If the supreme court ruled that the government cannot legally hold Americans for no reason other than being deemed an enemy combatant you most assuredly can't assassinate them either. Killing bears more weight than holding does.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WW, there was also a time when we considered folks who sympathized with communism as damn near terrorists...would you have been ok with targeting them for assasination without trial? Remember those laws? All struck down by the US Supreme Court...it isn't against the law to have controversial speech or even speech against the government..it is against the law to act on those beliefs though...again I want to see at least an indictment before we take someone out with a sniper rifle.

If they we an opertive in foriegn organization that had killed thousands of Americans and was suspected in ongoing attempt to kill more. Yes I would be okay with that. By suspected I mean that the CIA had intel that this was the case.

Didn't the CIA have intell that Iraq had WMD's?

 

[Amelia]

Germany 1941

BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

Your little joke might be applicable if the U.S. singled out BR for death by name. Not the same if he just happens to be killed in a military operation because he's in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.

But even if we did target specific U.S. citizens for death without trial during WWII (which for all I knew we may have) that wouldn't make it constitutional.

In WWII we interned Americans of Japanese descent. That doesn't mean it would be right to intern Americans whose families have or might possibly have connections to or sympathies with terrorists.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Germany 1941

BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

buggereater Ravi you do realize that happen in nazi germany people were killed just because the government said so. thanks for supporting naizism, it's crazy to show your support but by all means do continue.

 

[Valerie]

Germany 1941

BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

buggereater Ravi you do realize that happen in nazi germany people were killed just because the government said so. thanks for supporting naizism, it's crazy to show your support but by all means do continue.

In this hypothetical you are the Nazi, silly!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Germany 1941

BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

buggereater Ravi you do realize that happen in nazi germany people were killed just because the government said so. thanks for supporting naizism, it's crazy to show your support but by all means do continue.

In this hypothetical you are the Nazi, silly!

I don't think you comprehended what was said but that is usual for you.
BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

But anyway it did happen nazi killed people just because the government said so.

 

[Valerie]

buggereater Ravi you do realize that happen in nazi germany people were killed just because the government said so. thanks for supporting naizism, it's crazy to show your support but by all means do continue.

In this hypothetical you are the Nazi, silly!

I don't think you comprehended what was said but that is usual for you.
BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

But anyway it did happen nazi killed people just because the government said so.

I understand YOU said her post meant she was supporting Naziism.

 

[Ravi]

In this hypothetical you are the Nazi, silly!

I don't think you comprehended what was said but that is usual for you.
BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

But anyway it did happen nazi killed people just because the government said so.

I understand YOU said her post meant she was supporting Naziism.

I think his brain melted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In this hypothetical you are the Nazi, silly!

I don't think you comprehended what was said but that is usual for you.
BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

But anyway it did happen nazi killed people just because the government said so.

I understand YOU said her post meant she was supporting Naziism.

I said that how the nazi government worked shes showing support for the same thing here, thats how you and her both are doing it.

 

[Amelia]

It doesn't really matter.

Most of the people who care now will not be thinking about this next week. There will be no accountability. Just the sleeper precedent which will come up and bite us sometime down in the road.

And then people will be asking, why didn't someone do something about it back then, when the precedent was set.

And it will be too late.

It is already probably too late.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It doesn't really matter.

Most of the people who care now will not be thinking about this next week. There will be no accountability. Just the sleeper precedent which will come up and bite us sometime down in the road.

And then people will be asking, why didn't someone do something about it back then, when the precedent was set.

And it will be too late.

It is already probably too late.

I agree

 

[BlindBoo]

Again I have to disagree.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I think al Qeada represents a public danger worthy of granting this exception.

United States Constitution, Amendment 5:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​

Action Performed by Military - Check

Time of War - Check

Public Danger - Check



The 5th Amendment is not applicable in time of war or when the individual is a clear public danger. The fact of the matter is that the head of a terrorist organization that has declared war on the United States meets both conditions to be exempted from the 5th Amendments Due Process protections.



>>>>

You guys are mixing up the clauses in the fifth amendment.

The portion you are bolding and red-ing in the first clause applies to those who are serving in our armed forces. Awlaki was not a member of our military.

The "due process" clause is later and distinct from the first clause. That still applies to the rest of us citizens who aren't in the U.S. military. No exception is given in that clause for times of war or public danger.


.

I don't think you are reading it correctly. It applies to enemies who are killed when the armed forces are in action in war or in times of public danger. See when the Consitution was written we had Militias that were not part of a perminant military......

 

[BlindBoo]

WW, there was also a time when we considered folks who sympathized with communism as damn near terrorists...would you have been ok with targeting them for assasination without trial? Remember those laws? All struck down by the US Supreme Court...it isn't against the law to have controversial speech or even speech against the government..it is against the law to act on those beliefs though...again I want to see at least an indictment before we take someone out with a sniper rifle.

If they we an opertive in foriegn organization that had killed thousands of Americans and was suspected in ongoing attempt to kill more. Yes I would be okay with that. By suspected I mean that the CIA had intel that this was the case.

Didn't the CIA have intell that Iraq had WMD's?

No that was CurveBall and the Bush Administration cherry picking unvetting low level reports.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again I have to disagree.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I think al Qeada represents a public danger worthy of granting this exception.

United States Constitution, Amendment 5:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​

Action Performed by Military - Check

Time of War - Check

Public Danger - Check



The 5th Amendment is not applicable in time of war or when the individual is a clear public danger. The fact of the matter is that the head of a terrorist organization that has declared war on the United States meets both conditions to be exempted from the 5th Amendments Due Process protections.



>>>>

You guys are mixing up the clauses in the fifth amendment.

The portion you are bolding and red-ing in the first clause applies to those who are serving in our armed forces. Awlaki was not a member of our military.

The "due process" clause is later and distinct from the first clause. That still applies to the rest of us citizens who aren't in the U.S. military. No exception is given in that clause for times of war or public danger.


.

I don't think you are reading it correctly. It applies to enemies who are killed when the armed forces are in action in war or in times of public danger. See when the Consitution was written we had Militias that were not part of a perminant military......

What happen was that he was specifically targeted to be killed without due process.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If they we an opertive in foriegn organization that had killed thousands of Americans and was suspected in ongoing attempt to kill more. Yes I would be okay with that. By suspected I mean that the CIA had intel that this was the case.

Didn't the CIA have intell that Iraq had WMD's?

No that was CurveBall and the Bush Administration cherry picking unvetting low level reports.

OH I see Iraq had WMD's.

 

[Valerie]

It doesn't really matter.

Most of the people who care now will not be thinking about this next week. There will be no accountability. Just the sleeper precedent which will come up and bite us sometime down in the road.

And then people will be asking, why didn't someone do something about it back then, when the precedent was set.

And it will be too late.

It is already probably too late.

Why would it make you feel so much better if the judicial branch had authority over military actions instead of the executive branch...? Are they not equally corruptible but unequally accountable such that our processes are already properly balanced to provide for certain special circumstances in times of war...?



The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

 

[Dune]

Wanna cracker...?

Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.

Indeed he was... And....................???

If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the theater of battle, then of course they're fair game. It is a WAR over there. American due process is suspended in a war zone. I never thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb. So needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one.

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you are a proven traitor, the penalty is death.

 

[Valerie]

Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.

Indeed he was... And....................???

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you are a proven traitor, the penalty is death.

Go away, troll!

 

[Dune]

Indeed he was... And....................???

Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike. If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?

I didn't use a corrupted Ben Franklin quote, Dune did and you used a parrot picture to respond. I pointed out he was a very astute man. I don't get your response OR to then quote me back and whistle about it. Obviously I'm not comprehending the context of your conversation with.... whom?

The full quote is actually:

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both

Neither is the issue here.

No, that is exactly what is going on here. A steady erosion of freedom for a temporary gain of security, resulting in the eventual loss of both.