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

[washamericom]

I see it like this. When the US goes on one of it military adventures to steal Middle Eastern oil and war profiteering the people the US kills do not get due process so if the Muslims say figure out who their real enemy is as start killing off Wall Street banksters I would not have a problem with that since the plutocrats in the US are above the law. But when it comes to true American citizens, even criminal and treasonous Republicans like Christie, Rubio and Bush I would want them to have due process. Cruz may be a diiferent story since he is not a citizen. In his case he needs to be deported back to Canada and the Canadian justice system needs to deal with him.

couple of points: i am unaware of oil or gas riches in afghanistan, and where we stole anything, you will have to back up that claim.

two, we had iraq.

thre when obama came to power he had the whitehouse and both houses of congress. why didn't he seek justice from wall street then. are the people who created the no req mortgages responsible/accountable for anything ?

you want to deport citizens, just because they may or may not be natural born ??

if you have evidence of criminal and treasonous action by Republicans like Christie, Rubio and Bush you should come forward, there should be hearings as with benghazi, which is still a big deal.

your political bent is radical, i assume you will be voting for hillary or bernie, which is fine, that's what we do. i will be voting for Trump. i think you bought the entire democrat narrative, again, more power to ya.

 

[washamericom]

Then surrender if you want due process.

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

like occupy wall street jake ?

 

[washamericom]

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.

you raise a great point sd, our police are afraid to engage because of political correctness and flagrant generalization about "all police". same goes for military rules of engagement.

 

[washamericom]

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

laws are made by men and women jake, what else ?

 

[washamericom]

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.

there would be another civil war before dictatorship.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OWS? That is a fallacy of false equivalency.

Those people are where LEO can get them if they want them.

 

[washamericom]

OWS? That is a fallacy of false equivalency.

Those people are where LEO can get them if they want them.

good morning jake starkey, what took you so long, three minutes ? your losing your edge.

define unlawful resistance then please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

andyillusion, thank you. Very, very good explanation.

Wash is unhappy because he know that if any 'militia' who have acted heinously are holed on a mountainside and it is just too dangerous for LEO to assault them, a drone will be called in.

Oh,, hello, wash, I slept almost eleven hours. I got up about thirty minute ago and am catching up.

The laws are sufficient for you to research to find the definition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

laws are made by men and women jake, what else ?

The operative word is "rule". Your definitions do not govern the law.

 

[washamericom]

andyillusion, thank you. Very, very good explanation.

Wash is unhappy because he know that if any 'militia' who have acted heinously are holed on a mountainside and it is just too dangerous for LEO to assault them, a drone will be called in.

Oh,, hello, wash, I slept almost eleven hours. I got up about thirty minute ago and am catching up.

The laws are sufficient for you to research to find the definition.

don't let it happen again, you need to be here twenty four seven till Trump is elected...
this messageboard has no meaning without you here to explain things and be the translator for the liberals..

Who was president during Waco and Ruby RidgeThe truth is that President Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and the FBI are all fully responsible for the massacre of the nearly 100 men, women, and children at the Branch Davidian home in Waco, their denials notwithstanding.

 

[washamericom]

andyillusion, thank you. Very, very good explanation.

Wash is unhappy because he know that if any 'militia' who have acted heinously are holed on a mountainside and it is just too dangerous for LEO to assault them, a drone will be called in.

Oh,, hello, wash, I slept almost eleven hours. I got up about thirty minute ago and am catching up.

The laws are sufficient for you to research to find the definition.

like benghazi and the birth certificate and eligibility, i don't think they are cut and dry as you do, there seems to be disagreement, even controversy, even on this board.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Such is the nature of humanity.

 

[Freewill]

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.

If you are willing to have GWB make the decision to take you out while you are in a cafe eating lunch, just because the flawless CIA told him to kill you because of something a captive told them while being waterboarded then OK stand by what you say.

But case law and history tells us that US jurisdiction does not end at the boarder.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND U.S. JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN NATIONALS

2088
FORDHAM LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 82
A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1950s cast considerable doubt on
that proposition, although the Court did not expressly overrule the line of
cases supporting it.65
In Reid v. Covert,66 the Court reversed its own
opinions from the previous term67 and overturned the convictions of two
civilian wives of military officers who were tried by military tribunals
overseas for their husbands’ murders. Justice Black wrote for himself and
three others:
At the beginning we reject the idea that when the United States acts
against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United
States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority
have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations
imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to
punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and
other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty
should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another
land.68
The opinion established that civilians could not be tried for capital crimes
without the full panoply of due process standards guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights, at least outside of areas of ongoing military operations or
occupation.69 The holding was soon expanded to cover noncapital cases
and crimes involving civilian employees of the armed services.70
Due
65. In Reid v. Covert, Justice Black, writing for a plurality, considered Ross to be “one
of those cases that cannot be understood except in its peculiar setting; even then, it seems
highly unlikely that a similar result would be reached today.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 10
(1957) (Black, J.) (plurality opinion). He distinguished Madsen on the basis that it
“concerned trials in enemy territory which had been conquered and held by force of arms
and which was being governed at the time by our military forces. In such areas, the Army
commander can establish military or civilian commissions as an arm of the occupation to try
everyone in the occupied area, whether they are connected with the Army or not.” Id. at 35
n.63. Justice Black also suggested that “neither the [Insular Cases] nor their reasoning
should be given any further expansion.” Id. at 14.
66. 354 U.S. 1.
67. Id. at 5 (withdrawing opinions in Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956), and Reid
v. Covert, 351 U.S. 487 (1956)). Justices Frankfurter and Harlan concurred in the result.
Justice Harlan described the reasoning in those two cases as holding that the government’s
choice of court-martial to try the women satisfied due process because it was “reasonable” in
light of their connection with the military. Id. at 66 (Harlan, J., concurring).
68. Id. at 5–6 (Black, J.) (plurality opinion).
69. Id. at 35 n.63 (distinguishing Madsen based on the circumstances of military
occupation). Reid invalidated Article 2(a)(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946 (2012), which brought under the purview of
military jurisdiction civilians accompanying the armed forces outside of the United States or
its territories subject to treaty with the host country. Article 2(10) of the UCMJ covers
“persons serving with or accompanying” the armed forces in the field “in time of declared
war or a contingency operation.” 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(10). This provision remains good law,
although the reasoning in Reid may call it into question, at least with respect to citizens. See
United States v. Ali, 71 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (finding that an alien contractor working
for the U.S. government was not entitled to avoid a military trial under the Fifth
Amendment), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2338 (2013).
70. McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960) (extending Reid to
prohibit court martial of a civilian employee of the Army for a noncapital offense); Grisham
v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 (1960) (extending Reid to prohibit court martial of a civilian
Page 13
2014]
U.S. JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN NATIONALS
2089
process rights under the Fifth Amendment clearly now seem applicable to
U.S. citizens abroad.71

 

[JakeStarkey]

Case law does not protect citizens who are beyond the reach of normal LEO operations. There is no due process protection if you are Wash Wahabi calling for the overthrow of America by violence, support violent operations, etc.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

If you are willing to have GWB make the decision to take you out while you are in a cafe eating lunch, just because the flawless CIA told him to kill you because of something a captive told them while being waterboarded then OK stand by what you say.

lol.... Everything is Bush's fault!....

You realize that it was Obama, that expanded the CIA drone strike program? Right? The only US citizen who has been signed off by the POTUS for a drone strike, happened under Obama. Not Bush.

Bush did sign off on a drone strike, intended to kill Al-Harithi, who was linked to the USS Cole bombing. Kamal Derwish was in the car with Al-Harithi, who was an American citizen, but he was not the intended target. Bush signed off on the Al-Harithi attack. But he did not sign off on a strike against a specific US citizen.

Obama on the other hand did. Obama signed off on a specific strike against Anwar al-Aulaqi, who was a US citizen, and there were 3 other US citizen in the car with Al-Aulagi, which were killed also.

You people on the left... no matter what Obama does "Bush targeted US Citizen!".. Ignore your guy, and blame someone else when it isn't true.

That said, I generally agree with your basic premise. Drone strikes need proper accountability, and a limited scope. However... when you are riding in a car with known avowed terrorists, and you are carrying weapons and explosives.... To me it's a bit like how we dealt with cattle rustlers in ages past. You were found with cattle rustlers, and you were hanged with cattle rustlers.

Honestly... If I'm hanging out with mass murderers in Pakistan, riding around with weapons and explosive, I can't really blame anyone for blowing my butt up.

 

[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.

there would be another civil war before dictatorship.

Which is why the Federal government is slowly whittling down our ability to defend ourselves, while at the same time building up state and local SWAT teams that look like storm troopers. When the dictatorship comes, we won't stand much of a chance.

The ratio of John Waynes to Steve Buscemi in our society, has dramatically shifted to the wimpy.

Meanwhile the government is slowly building it's military... .er... police force inside the states. It's coming. I don't know when. Hopefully after I'm dead.

 

[Unkotare]

I have a problem with people who call themselves "pro life" that support the death penalty.

I agree. It is either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion".

I am anti-abortion, unless it's within the first trimester and it is my seed in there incubating. Then it's "strip her and rip her" for me!

Don't worry, your boyfriend 's behind can't get pregnant.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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


If they are making war against the United States, no, no problem at all, thanks for asking.

It's merely an act of war against America's enemies. Legal and Constitutional in every respect. And a pretty good idea, too.

 

[my2¢]

I see execution as a problem only if they surrender peacefully.

 

[TeaBagger]

I see it like this. When the US goes on one of it military adventures to steal Middle Eastern oil and war profiteering the people the US kills do not get due process so if the Muslims say figure out who their real enemy is as start killing off Wall Street banksters I would not have a problem with that since the plutocrats in the US are above the law. But when it comes to true American citizens, even criminal and treasonous Republicans like Christie, Rubio and Bush I would want them to have due process. Cruz may be a diiferent story since he is not a citizen. In his case he needs to be deported back to Canada and the Canadian justice system needs to deal with him.

couple of points: i am unaware of oil or gas riches in afghanistan, and where we stole anything, you will have to back up that claim.

two, we had iraq.

thre when obama came to power he had the whitehouse and both houses of congress. why didn't he seek justice from wall street then. are the people who created the no req mortgages responsible/accountable for anything ?

you want to deport citizens, just because they may or may not be natural born ??

if you have evidence of criminal and treasonous action by Republicans like Christie, Rubio and Bush you should come forward, there should be hearings as with benghazi, which is still a big deal.

your political bent is radical, i assume you will be voting for hillary or bernie, which is fine, that's what we do. i will be voting for Trump. i think you bought the entire democrat narrative, again, more power to ya.

A couple of things:

Obama wussed out on prosecuting the Wall Street banksters but had he done anything they probably would have assassinated him.

Bush is a war criminal and if he or Cheney even go to Canada they will be arrested for war crimes.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney Found Guilty of War Crimes