Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[bigrebnc1775]

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

BTW how do you like immagration sytem now? should we stop giving out citizenships to every tom dick and harry? Next thing you know we'll have mexicans doing this.

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

No, not just "someone" as if it could be "anyone" of us... Just unlawful enemy combatants with an expressed intent to kill Americans.

Now just on a whim of obama you can be decleared an enemy combatant.

 

[Amelia]

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

BTW how do you like immagration sytem now? should we stop giving out citizenships to every tom dick and harry? Next thing you know we'll have mexicans doing this.

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Article I Section 8 specifically empowers Congress to authorize use of the military in cases of insurrection. Insurrection does not occur by "another nation", insurrection is revolting against your own government. Therefore the Constitution authorizes the user of military force against US citizens who are in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

"who are in a state of insurrection"

Nice try.

"Insurrectoin" an attempt to overthrow and established government, al Alwki calling for the destruction of the United States.

Yes, as a United States Citizen, that would be placing one's self in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

Calling for the distrruction of America is not the same as calling for the over throw of the government.

 

[Valerie]

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

That's right, keep ignoring the difference between criminal due process and the due process of war...

What war?

La la la... Back to your militia tree fort, soldier!

 

[Ravi]

"who are in a state of insurrection"

Nice try.

"Insurrectoin" an attempt to overthrow and established government, al Alwki calling for the destruction of the United States.

Yes, as a United States Citizen, that would be placing one's self in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

Calling for the distrruction of America is not the same as calling for the over throw of the government.

Any minute now I expect you to shed tears over bin laden.

 

[Valerie]

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

No, not just "someone" as if it could be "anyone" of us... Just unlawful enemy combatants with an expressed intent to kill Americans.

Now just on a whim of obama you can be decleared an enemy combatant.

Keep ignoring all the facts that have been posted here demonstrating it was far from whimsical...

 

[geauxtohell]

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.

We didn't kill Awlaki because it was "too messy". We killed him because it was the best way to reach him in Yemen, where he was hiding out.

Once gain, Awlaki knew the government was after him for two years, he did nothing to change his fate. He didn't even change his tone.

If I align myself with the terrorist group responsible for the Cole, 9-11, Khobar Towers, Ft. Hood, and a multitude of other events, I wouldn't expect any quarter to be given on the battlefield simply because I am an American citizen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Insurrectoin" an attempt to overthrow and established government, al Alwki calling for the destruction of the United States.

Yes, as a United States Citizen, that would be placing one's self in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

Calling for the distrruction of America is not the same as calling for the over throw of the government.

Any minute now I expect you to shed tears over bin laden.

So standing up for an American citizens right for due process and I cry because bin ladin is dead? OH WOW did you think of that without any help? I WIN.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, not just "someone" as if it could be "anyone" of us... Just unlawful enemy combatants with an expressed intent to kill Americans.

Now just on a whim of obama you can be decleared an enemy combatant.

Keep ignoring all the facts that have been posted here demonstrating it was far from whimsical...

When were charges filed against him and what court were they issued from?

 

[jillian]

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

No, not just "someone" as if it could be "anyone" of us... Just unlawful enemy combatants with an expressed intent to kill Americans.

Now just on a whim of obama you can be decleared an enemy combatant.

as opposed to the "enemy combatants" declared when bush was president?

like it or not.. presidents don't give back power taken by the last guy... which is why you have to watch out for what YOUR guy does, too.

second, i'm kinda bored of the fauxrage from people who would have been doing a victory dance if bush had done this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.

We didn't kill Awlaki because it was "too messy". We killed him because it was the best way to reach him in Yemen, where he was hiding out.

Once gain, Awlaki knew the government was after him for two years, he did nothing to change his fate. He didn't even change his tone.

If I align myself with the terrorist group responsible for the Cole, 9-11, Khobar Towers, Ft. Hood, and a multitude of other events, I wouldn't expect any quarter to be given on the battlefield simply because I am an American citizen.

Why don't we do predators bombs at the border? To get rid of those criminals from the south? After all it would stop the need to have a border patrol and a fence

 

[jillian]

Now just on a whim of obama you can be decleared an enemy combatant.

Keep ignoring all the facts that have been posted here demonstrating it was far from whimsical...

When were charges filed against him and what court were they issued from?

What charges were filed against the people held in GITMO when bush was president and what court were the issue from?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, not just "someone" as if it could be "anyone" of us... Just unlawful enemy combatants with an expressed intent to kill Americans.

Now just on a whim of obama you can be decleared an enemy combatant.

as opposed to the "enemy combatants" declared when bush was president?

like it or not.. presidents don't give back power taken by the last guy... which is why you have to watch out for what YOUR guy does, too.

second, i'm kinda bored of the fauxrage from people who would have been doing a victory dance if bush had done this.

Do you care about the rights of an American citizen jillian?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Keep ignoring all the facts that have been posted here demonstrating it was far from whimsical...

When were charges filed against him and what court were they issued from?

What charges were filed against the people held in GITMO when bush was president and what court were the issue from?

How many were American citizens?

 

[Valerie]

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.

The man evaded justice. The case to cease the US executive order against him was thrown out of federal court and the court reiterated it's deference to the executive order. He also had a dual citizenship in Yemen. He failed to appear in Yemeni court and ended up with a wanted dead or alive warrant on his head. The US military in cooperation with the Yemeni government shot to kill. There was no 5th amendment criminal due process owed to him at that point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.

The man evaded justice. The case to cease the US executive order against him was thrown out of federal court and the court reiterated it's deference to the executive order. He also had a dual citizenship in Yemen. He failed to appear in Yemeni court and ended up with a wanted dead or alive warrant on his head. The US military in cooperation with the Yemeni government shot to kill. There was no 5th amendment criminal due process owed to him at that point.

So we give all police department predoter drones and the FBI so we can take care of all those criminals on the run.

 

[geauxtohell]

If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.

We didn't kill Awlaki because it was "too messy". We killed him because it was the best way to reach him in Yemen, where he was hiding out.

Once gain, Awlaki knew the government was after him for two years, he did nothing to change his fate. He didn't even change his tone.

If I align myself with the terrorist group responsible for the Cole, 9-11, Khobar Towers, Ft. Hood, and a multitude of other events, I wouldn't expect any quarter to be given on the battlefield simply because I am an American citizen.

Why don't we do predators bombs at the border? To get rid of those criminals from the south? After all it would stop the need to have a border patrol and a fence

Congress hasn't authorized the use of force against the "Zetas" or any group other then Al Queda.

That pretty much knocks the legs out of all your slippery slope strawman arguements.

 

[Valerie]

If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.

The man evaded justice. The case to cease the US executive order against him was thrown out of federal court and the court reiterated it's deference to the executive order. He also had a dual citizenship in Yemen. He failed to appear in Yemeni court and ended up with a wanted dead or alive warrant on his head. The US military in cooperation with the Yemeni government shot to kill. There was no 5th amendment criminal due process owed to him at that point.

So we give all police department predoter drones and the FBI so we can take care of all those criminals on the run.

No, LittleReb, a thousand times NO. Thanks for demonstrating once again your lack of comprehension of the differences involved...

 

[Ravi]

Calling for the distrruction of America is not the same as calling for the over throw of the government.

Any minute now I expect you to shed tears over bin laden.

So standing up for an American citizens right for due process and I cry because bin ladin is dead? OH WOW did you think of that without any help? I WIN.

The military isn't beholden to due process in this case.

Try reading the 5th Amendment for comprehension.

And then try reading it again for comprehension. Due process doesn't even apply to this terrorist's death.

 

[Valerie]

I think Liability said it best.......... ------->>>

Sorry, but repeating your claim as though it was an established fact (which it isn't) doesn't convert your claim into anything substantial.

The President did not supersede the Constitution. He did not deprive al-Awlaki of "due process." There is no basis for you claim that the President lacks the Constitutional (and statutory) authority to order the killing of an enemy combatant in time of war regardless of his U.S. citizenship. And that you don't care what Congress did is probably one of the reasons you keep repeating your unproved contentions.

You cannot support your claim regarding what the Constitution commands on this topic except, apparently, by reiterating your belief again and again. And that fails to substantiate anything beyond the fact that you have a firm belief.

You have yet to support YOUR contention that the fact of his American citizenship somehow differentiates al-Awlaki from any other enemy combatant in time of war.

Yes. By birth, he was technically an American citizen. But, no: that factoid provides no support for your contention that he was denied any Constitutional right under these circumstances.

You are wrong. Lots of people are wrong on that topic. An alien here in America has a right to trial by jury and for a felony, etc., he has a right to be indicted by a Grand Jury. Yet an alien here is not a citizen.

Surely SOME of you must, by now, start to glean that at least SOME of the rights accorded to the People under our Constitution apply to PEOPLE not just to CITIZENS.

So your formulation starts off on the wrong track. You can call it bologna or Oscar Mayer, but that just makes you all the more wrong.

NOW then, once we understand that SOME rights belong to JUST citizens (e.g., voting) but SOME rights belong to "persons" (i.e., not just to citizens), then the next thing some of YOU must start to come to grips with is that NOT ALL PHRASES used within the Constitution apply to all people at all times.

For example, by its very terms, the FIFTH Amendment applies to considerations of due process within the context of criminal law, for the most part. You can try to deny that obvious fact, but you cannot succeed since -- when you deny it -- you start off with a false premise.

I'm sorry you have YET to learn the truth of this matter. But the Constitution in MANY regards applies to all people who happen to be here (our right to a jury trial doesn't extend to citizens, either, outside of OUR sovereign reach). And it applies only to the extent it was intended to apply. So, for example, if you are charged with a crime here, regardless of whether you are a citizen or an alien, you ARE equally ENTITLED to a fair trial, a jury, in some cases to a Grand Jury, to a lawyer, and if you can't afford one, to have one appointed to you. The procedural rules are also CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed to be the same for you as for anybody else in a similar bind, regardless of your citizenship status.

But it ONLY applies where it was intended to apply. So if you are an enemy of our Republic in time of War, you have no right to "due process."

The Constitution was not drafted by simpletons. They (unlike you in this regard) knew what they were doing. And the claim that the Constitutional right to due process applies to enemy combatants over in Yemen confuses a Constitutional right applicable to a criminal proceeding with some unimaginable "right" of overarching planetary scope in non criminal matters.

You are not merely wrong; you couldn't be more wrong.

It is far from a useful insight to declare that "the Constitution applies to citizens." Of course it does. That's never been debated.

What the Constitution does or does not command is what has been debated.

YOU (and several others) have claimed that the Constitution prohibits the military order of the President to kill an enemy combatant if that enemy combatant happens to be (by accident of birth) nominally an U.S. citizen.

But you are wrong. The Constitution provides no such prohibition.

You (and others) repeatedly cite to the Fifth Amendment as "support" for your proposition; but you adamantly REFUSE to recognize that the Fifth Amendment addresses the rights of people in the context of (for the most part) CRIMINAL proceedings.

OF COURSE a citizen is entitled to due process when threatened by the government with loss of life or liberty -- IN THE CONTEXT of a CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. But that is NOT the same thing as saying that an enemy combatant (who happens to be a citizen) is entitled to "due process" in Yemen from being struck down in time of war.

The entire concept of "due process" simply and flatly does NOT PERTAIN to such matters.