does anyone have a problem with executing Americans without due process ??

[JakeStarkey]

That is why we live by a rule of law, not a rule of men.

 

[Si modo]

Death Without Due Process

" Our Constitution and international law strictly limit extrajudicial killing, for good reason. In areas of actual armed conflict, killing can be lawful because of battlefield requirements. Outside that context, an extrajudicial killing is legal only as a last resort, and only in response to a truly imminent threat. This makes sense: If a threat is imminent, there is no time for judicial review. In every other context, the Constitution requires the government to prove its case to a court before it kills. After all, allegations aren't evidence - the difference between the two is due process."

That would mean that anyone killed in war should have got a trial. I think the reason why killing someone in war is legal is because their is some kind of legislative act saying so. A declaration of war is a good example. People in power just can't go around and kill, steal, etc, etc without some kind of written rule or law to do so. It kind of prevents them from ignoring the legislative body of the government. That is the body that makes the rules.

This is about extrajudicial killing, outside of an active war zone, without due process. This is about a president who is judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[Clementine]

Due process actually means in accordance with the law. Something has to prevent the politicians from taking away someone's life without the law.

That's how it's supposed to be but not the way it is these days. Government can kill people without due process. They can also take your property and money without due process, thanks to oppressive civil forfeiture laws.

Government officials do whatever they want and there is little accountability because we have a press that won't even report some things. When we do find out about things from whistleblowers and the few real reporters left in this country, most in the media won't repeat it and no one addresses it.

Government is currently exercising more power than they are allowed by our constitution. Whether it's killing people without due process or Obama unilaterally ignoring federal immigration laws, the problem is out of control. And no one in Washington is currently fighting to change things. Once government hands itself more power, whether legally or illegally, they won't give it up.

While libs won't dare criticize Obama for murdering people instead of arresting them, they are quick to condemn those who don't treat terrorist suspects with the utmost respect. Kill them, but don't deprive them of sleep or use enhanced interrogation.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Death Without Due Process

" Our Constitution and international law strictly limit extrajudicial killing, for good reason. In areas of actual armed conflict, killing can be lawful because of battlefield requirements. Outside that context, an extrajudicial killing is legal only as a last resort, and only in response to a truly imminent threat. This makes sense: If a threat is imminent, there is no time for judicial review. In every other context, the Constitution requires the government to prove its case to a court before it kills. After all, allegations aren't evidence - the difference between the two is due process."

That would mean that anyone killed in war should have got a trial. I think the reason why killing someone in war is legal is because their is some kind of legislative act saying so. A declaration of war is a good example. People in power just can't go around and kill, steal, etc, etc without some kind of written rule or law to do so. It kind of prevents them from ignoring the legislative body of the government. That is the body that makes the rules.

This is about extrajudicial killing, outside of an active war zone, without due process. This is about a president who is judge, jury, and executioner.

I'm not really sure what the law says on this but Obama might actually have the same authority that Bush had to kill terrorist at will. It actually may be a law in existence that allows him to do that. I don't know if some acts of terrorism should be deemed criminal or an act of war but even suspected spies during WWII got trials in the united states (that I know of).

Personally I'm a little concerned that our government can deem anyone an enemy comabatent and use unlimited power to deal with them. Think of the guy behind wiki-leaks. THey have declared him an enemy combatent and want to execute him on the spot. The guy should get a trial.

 

[Si modo]

The law is the COTUS - it says no can do. And, yes, you should be concerned.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Due process actually means in accordance with the law. Something has to prevent the politicians from taking away someone's life without the law.

That's how it's supposed to be but not the way it is these days. Government can kill people without due process. They can also take your property and money without due process, thanks to oppressive civil forfeiture laws.

Government officials do whatever they want and there is little accountability because we have a press that won't even report some things. When we do find out about things from whistleblowers and the few real reporters left in this country, most in the media won't repeat it and no one addresses it.

Government is currently exercising more power than they are allowed by our constitution. Whether it's killing people without due process or Obama unilaterally ignoring federal immigration laws, the problem is out of control. And no one in Washington is currently fighting to change things. Once government hands itself more power, whether legally or illegally, they won't give it up.

While libs won't dare criticize Obama for murdering people instead of arresting them, they are quick to condemn those who don't treat terrorist suspects with the utmost respect. Kill them, but don't deprive them of sleep or use enhanced interrogation.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Obama killing terrorist. I do have a concern that this power may be used against anyone the government happens to deem as an enemy combatant. I think a lot of people in the Tea party movement have been called terrorist. WHy? It is because if it sticks the government can treat them in the same way terrorist have been treated.

 

[Si modo]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Obama killing terrorist. I do have a concern that this power may be used against anyone the government happens to deem as an enemy combatant. I think a lot of people in the Tea party movement have been called terrorist. WHy? It is because if it sticks the government can treat them in the same way terrorist have been treated.

Just as we need to defend offensive speech to ensure our right to free speech is preserved; we must not tolerate a piece of shit being executed extrajudicially, lest we wonder who is next..

 

[Camp]

In 2011, Obama ordered the CIA to murder Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born in New Mexico. When the CIA's drones murdered Awlaki, he was within eyesight in Yemen of about 12 Yemeni intelligence agents and four CIA agents, all of whom collectively could have arrested him. He was not engaged in any unlawful behavior. He was unarmed and sitting at an outdoor cafe with a friend and his teenage son and the son's friend. All four—Americans all—were murdered by the drones dispatched from Virginia.

The entire concept of this discussion rest on the reliability of this unsourced allegation about there being 12 Yemeni intelligence agents and four CIA agents that "could" have made an arrest. Not mentioned is that the event was taking place in an al-Qaeda-controlled town and territory. It is not mentioned because if it was, even if the story of 16 spies with badges and arrest powers being on the job were true, an explanation of how those guys would have gotten out of the region alive would be extremely difficult to conjure up.

One distorted couple of sentences can and often does make a concept essay like this null and void, totally useless and neutralized. It makes discussion like pissing in the wind.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Death Without Due Process

" Our Constitution and international law strictly limit extrajudicial killing, for good reason. In areas of actual armed conflict, killing can be lawful because of battlefield requirements. Outside that context, an extrajudicial killing is legal only as a last resort, and only in response to a truly imminent threat. This makes sense: If a threat is imminent, there is no time for judicial review. In every other context, the Constitution requires the government to prove its case to a court before it kills. After all, allegations aren't evidence - the difference between the two is due process."

That would mean that anyone killed in war should have got a trial. I think the reason why killing someone in war is legal is because their is some kind of legislative act saying so. A declaration of war is a good example. People in power just can't go around and kill, steal, etc, etc without some kind of written rule or law to do so. It kind of prevents them from ignoring the legislative body of the government. That is the body that makes the rules.

This is about the people deciding whether or not a president's actions are appropriate through the political process, not judicial; as the courts have no role or authority to make such a determination consistent with political question doctrine:

“[T]he Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918).”

Political Question Doctrine

Clearly. addressing the threat posed by terrorists abroad manifests as “conduct of foreign relations [which] is the sole responsibility of the executive branch,” where due process does not come into play, and where a president is not acting in the capacity of judge, jury, or executioner.

The people are at liberty to oppose a president's actions in this regard pursuant to their First Amendment rights, to campaign against a sitting president during a General Election, and to vote against a president because of his foreign policy positions; but due process is not at issue, due process does not apply outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, and this is not an issue that concerns the courts.

 

[Freewill]

What does the Constitution say about US citizens which take up arms against the US?

Did he "take up arms" against the US? Is propaganda "taking up arms?" And who is to judge, if he is guilty there is suppose to be a trial, that is what the Constitution does say.

 

[Kondor3]

If a US citizen has gone over to the enemy (Militant Islam) and is actively engaged with our enemies, then he can and should be killed.

I have very little love for Obumble, but he got this particular one right.

Phukk 'em... let 'em die.

 

[Freewill]

IF the American took up arms and was actively fighting and was killed that is one thing. But an America who is just saying things we don't like is quite another.

Never the less as bad as he was his son wasn't an Obama/CIA whomever got him killed.

OBAMA Channeling NIXON: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi; August 26, 1995[1] – October 14, 2011) was a 16 year old American citizen who was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant[2][3][4][5] by an airstrike by an armed C.I.A. drone in Yemen on October 14, 2011. Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki had no connection to terrorism[6] and was searching for his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, a dual Yemeni-American citizen who worked as Islamic Lecturer in the Arabian Peninsula. Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by an airstrike by an armed C.I.A. drone[7] two weeks prior to the death of his son.

Human rights groups have raised questions as to why al-Awlaki was killed by the U.S. in a country with which the United States is not at war. Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated "If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who’s being targeted, and why."[8]

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[8] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[8]

 

[Andylusion]

What does the Constitution say about US citizens which take up arms against the US?

What does it say in the constitution when the government takes up arms against the people?

The answer to his question, is the same as the answer to yours. Read the constitution. It's in there.

Once the government decides to impose a dictatorship of anykind it will just ignore the rules set for it. The constitution has no magical force that prevents this from happenning other than the restraint of those in power . IN many ways we kind of live at their mercy and if it wasn't for the fact that we have a lot of people in power who have no desire to harm us or follow the rules set for them this country will become an banana republic over night.

How do we know a government is imposing a dictatorship? When it violates the limits of the constitution.

That is in fact, the entire purpose of the constitution. To define what the government can, and can not do.

If you ignore the constitution, and claim the government is engaged in a dictatorship, when it's operating inside the constitution..... Then you can claim all governments are dictatorships.... no matter what they do.

Government by it's nature is going to do something that someone does not like, and they would claim "it is a dictatorship!"

Here's the problem.... the left wing in our country has been eroding the constitution for decades now. When it's taking property from the wealthy... that erosion is ok. When it's regulating business, that's ok. When it's forcing people to buy ethanol, and 'green energy'. Ignoring the constitution to push Medicare and Social Security. Both of which are unconstitutional.

Now after 80+ years of eroding and destroying, and ignoring our constitution.... now.... NOW... suddenly you want the government to pay attention when it has to do with this specific issue?

I have no doubt in my mind that this government will become a dictatorship. I'm convinced it will happen. But it will be because of YOU people on the left, who have eroded the limitations of government to this very day.

Where does the constitution give the Federal Government the right and ability to dictate what insurance must cover, and to penalize people for not having insurance?

There you go. The blame for a tyrannical government, squarely on the left.

 

[whitehall]

The warrantless execution of American citizens isn't a political issue because the liberal media won't let it be an issue. How does it work? Does some faceless drone in the "intelligence" community point out a target? Does an unnamed official have the responsibility for signing the execution order? It's ironic that even illegal aliens who are criminally in the U.S. come under the umbrella of the U.S. Constitution but American citizens who are deemed "threats to the U.S." can be executed without any attempt at due process. Indications are that Troops in combat can't fire a shot unless it's OK'd by some fat ass in the Pentagon but unnamed drones can blow up an American citizen in a car and chalk up the death of his son and his son's friend to collateral damage.

 

[TeaBagger]

Then surrender if you want due process.

Unlawful resistance means LEO or the military can do you in.

The police aren't allowed to shoot suspects in the back because they are running away. You and Obama are totally clueless about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know what "due process of law" means? Turds like you are always invoking it when your spouting crap about queer marriage.

Police are allowed in some cases to shoot armed suspects in the back. An armed suspect with a gun can easily turn and open fire on a cop.

 

[bripat9643]

Then surrender if you want due process.

Unlawful resistance means LEO or the military can do you in.

The police aren't allowed to shoot suspects in the back because they are running away. You and Obama are totally clueless about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know what "due process of law" means? Turds like you are always invoking it when your spouting crap about queer marriage.

Police are allowed in some cases to shoot armed suspects in the back. An armed suspect with a gun can easily turn and open fire on a cop.

They can shoot a suspect only if they believe their life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger. They can't do it simply to prevent him from escaping.

 

[TeaBagger]

Then surrender if you want due process.

Unlawful resistance means LEO or the military can do you in.

The police aren't allowed to shoot suspects in the back because they are running away. You and Obama are totally clueless about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know what "due process of law" means? Turds like you are always invoking it when your spouting crap about queer marriage.

Police are allowed in some cases to shoot armed suspects in the back. An armed suspect with a gun can easily turn and open fire on a cop.

They can shoot a suspect only if they believe their life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger. They can't do it simply to prevent him from escaping.

I agree but there are grey areas when the cop may have reason to believe his life is in danger. If the suspect is fleeing in a car the officer may have to shoot and kill the driver to protect others.

 

[bripat9643]

Then surrender if you want due process.

Unlawful resistance means LEO or the military can do you in.

The police aren't allowed to shoot suspects in the back because they are running away. You and Obama are totally clueless about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know what "due process of law" means? Turds like you are always invoking it when your spouting crap about queer marriage.

Police are allowed in some cases to shoot armed suspects in the back. An armed suspect with a gun can easily turn and open fire on a cop.

They can shoot a suspect only if they believe their life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger. They can't do it simply to prevent him from escaping.

I agree but there are grey areas when the cop may have reason to believe his life is in danger. If the suspect is fleeing in a car the officer may have to shoot and kill the driver to protect others.

That still fits the rule. But they can't shoot him just because he's a murder suspect and they're worried that he may murder someone else. There has to be an imminent threat to someone's life, as in a hostage situation.

 

[Andylusion]

The warrantless execution of American citizens isn't a political issue because the liberal media won't let it be an issue. How does it work? Does some faceless drone in the "intelligence" community point out a target? Does an unnamed official have the responsibility for signing the execution order? It's ironic that even illegal aliens who are criminally in the U.S. come under the umbrella of the U.S. Constitution but American citizens who are deemed "threats to the U.S." can be executed without any attempt at due process. Indications are that Troops in combat can't fire a shot unless it's OK'd by some fat ass in the Pentagon but unnamed drones can blow up an American citizen in a car and chalk up the death of his son and his son's friend to collateral damage.

You are talking about two different issues. Connected, but still different.

If you are an American citizen, and you outside the US, and pick up a gun, to fight against American troops... you forfeit your protections. Period. To me, that's the end of that discussion. Game over dude. You are finished.

Our troop out in the front line, are not going to ask you to put down your gun, and start reading your Miranda rights.

They are going to shoot your dumb butt dead, and that's that.

And if you shoot at troops from a house, they are going call in an A-10, and 30 mm, your butt into swiss cheeze, from a mile away, and laugh when it happens.

And if you shoot at our troops from a bunker, they are going call in a 500 lbs bomb from an F-16, and watch your vaporized butt blow with the smoke in the wind. Again, a mile away laughing at you.

And if we figure out where you are at, before we come in contact, we'll do the same thing.

Now switch out the A-10, and the F-16, with a drone.... what's the difference? Nothing. No difference.

To answer your question.... There are currently two separate drone programs. The CIA has a drone program, and the US Airforce has a drone program. The regulations for both are connected, yet a bit different.

What you are looking for is....
Disposition Matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Disposition Matrix. This is the fabled 'kill list'.

The CIA drone program, is run exclusively in Pakistan, with presidential authority. It is limited in scope, to the regions bordering Afghanistan, but inside Pakistan.

The CIA does not have a blank check to attack at will, but it does have wide authority.

Possible targets are presented by the National Counterterrorism Center. They are reviewed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Council, Pentagon and the State Department.

All targets on the list are reviewed once every three months.

Once a target is on the list, the CIA has wide authority to act with a drone strike, in the assigned regions of Pakistan.

They don't need anymore approval. They can just do it. I for one, am against this, and think it needs changed.

OUTSIDE OF PAKISTAN....

Every single target that is not in Pakistan, not in the regions where the CIA operates, all targets must be signed off by President Obama personally.

Once the target is signed off, they are placed on the list.

Then when the military... not the CIA, locates the target (possibly with the help of the CIA), then they can go to a general at the Pentagon to green light the attack.

And then they launch a drone strike.

Now if you have paid attention to the news, you know that the CIA does the majority of drone strikes. This is because the CIA is operating in a hot bed area, and they are putting forward most of the targets, and their targets in their area, do not need presidential approval, and since they already know where the targets are, they can find and attack them quickly, and once the target is found, they don't need to have anyone green light it... they just do it.

This is obviously much harder for the military, which isn't geared to identify individual targets (more like bomb that house of terrorists over there), and then has to have each target individually signed off on by the president, and even then will not launch an attack until someone at the pentagon reviews the entire thing and green lights it. ( I like this much better ).

Just to explain that a bit more... the CIA operatives over in the middle east locate a target on the list... they just kill it. A US military operative over in the middle east finds a target on the list... he then sends that information back to the pentagon, where the strike is give the green light, and then they kill it.

The current goal I've seen, is to have the CIA drone program, need a Pentagon official to sign off on each strike.

The reason this hasn't happened though, is simply because the CIA drone program is about the only reason Afghanistan hasn't been completely toppled. Obama pulled out way too soon. They were not ready to hold their own defense, and everyone knew it but the left.

Obama doesn't want to completely redeploy back into Afghanistan, because it would be political suicide for the Democraps... but he also doesn't want Afghanistan being completely toppled, which would also be political suicide for the Democraps. So the only solution, is to allow the CIA unhindered drone strikes.

At least, that's my take on it. Obama was extremely weary of the drone program, and with good reason, but he against everything he said to believe, expanded the program in relation to Afghanistan, and I can only assume this is why. It's the only logical reason.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

does anyone have a problem with executing Americans without due process ??

Yes...