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

[washamericom]

frankly i'm really surprised this hasn't become a campaign issue. (note: i just corrected this, i meant to say i'm surprised it's not a campaign issue (it isn't), sorry folks)

eric holder , you remember, wanted to try the guitmo detainees in New York city, it was as bad an idea as buzzing manhattan with airforce one, Trump probably won't do that, because of his New York values.


Can the president kill you? The short answer is: Yes, but not legally. Yet, President Obama has established a secret process that involves officials from the Departments of Justice and Defense, the CIA, and the White House senior staff whereby candidates are proposed for execution and the collective wisdom of the officials then recommends execution to the president, who then accepts or rejects the recommendation.

Can the President Legally Kill Americans?


i have to consider, if obama had been republican would the libs be as ok with it as they are now.

It is happening here.

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.

When word of this got out, the president came under heavy criticism. He responded by claiming he had the lawful authority to kill any dangerous person whose arrest was impractical. He also claimed he had a legal opinion from Attorney General Eric Holder that justified the killings. He then dispatched Holder to explain the lawful basis for the killings at a speech at Northwestern Law School. The speech produced even more criticism and, eventually, the revelation of a portion of the legal opinion.


no patriot would argue that awlaki isn't better off dead dead dead, so are we all.

in another twist of constitutionalism is the immediate imprisonment of the video that caused benghazi murders according to the administrative's story, brought in for questioning three days after hillary promised to have him subsequently jailed. (another thread)

i'd like everyone's opinion, but if any legal people would weigh in that would be awesome.

libs tell me why it's ok please.

 

[Moonglow]

 

[Moonglow]

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

 

[emilynghiem]

frankly i'm really surprised this has become a campaign issue.

eric holder , you remember, wanted to try the guitmo detainees in New York city, it was as bad an idea as buzzing manhattan with airforce one, Trump probably won't do that, because of his New York values.


Can the president kill you? The short answer is: Yes, but not legally. Yet, President Obama has established a secret process that involves officials from the Departments of Justice and Defense, the CIA, and the White House senior staff whereby candidates are proposed for execution and the collective wisdom of the officials then recommends execution to the president, who then accepts or rejects the recommendation.

Can the President Legally Kill Americans?


i have to consider, if obama had been republican would the libs be as ok with it as they are now.

It is happening here.

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.

When word of this got out, the president came under heavy criticism. He responded by claiming he had the lawful authority to kill any dangerous person whose arrest was impractical. He also claimed he had a legal opinion from Attorney General Eric Holder that justified the killings. He then dispatched Holder to explain the lawful basis for the killings at a speech at Northwestern Law School. The speech produced even more criticism and, eventually, the revelation of a portion of the legal opinion.


no patriot would argue that awlaki isn't better off dead dead dead, so are we all.

in another twist of constitutionalism is the immediate imprisonment of the video that caused benghazi murders according to the administrative's story, brought in for questioning three days after hillary promised to have him subsequently jailed. (another thread)

i'd like everyone's opinion, but if any legal people would weigh in that would be awesome.

libs tell me why it's ok please.

Whether it's a US citizen or noncitizen doing it, this is why "terrorism" that bypasses due process
creates this catch 22: Do we or do we not apply "due process" when the attacker doesn't agree
to follow the same rules of engagement and civil standards of international laws?

Because terroristic attacks that aren't done by an organized nation can't be addressed as a nation,
this blurs the line and becomes a grey area.

As many people believe we should still respond by following the rules we are bound by; just because someone else decides to act criminal does not give us license to respond as lawlessly.

Others say that in order to enforce effective DETERRENCE, preemptive strikes and fighting
fire with fire is necessary; ie use the same tactics back on them, where due process is no longer required. So if terrorists don't follow the rules, then we don't follow the rules when responding to them either. Lt. Col. Allen West used this tactic during an interrogation and shot past a man's head to compel information that saved his troops; by the letter, it was against civil rules to do this and he got disciplined for it, but by natural laws it was effective to speak the same language as the terrorists to get anywhere. So it was the right thing to do overall, but broke the literal rules.

Obviously, we can't have Lt. Cols and Presidents bending the rules to try to deal with terrorists on terms that color outside the lines.

The point is to get back on track where everyone is in agreement NOT to bypass due process,
or suppress the right to petition in the first place, which otherwise causes violent outbursts to break through the political censorship obstructing the democratic process.

If we respect the civil democratic process to begin with, we can avoid these sidetracking attacks altogether and just stick with civil procedures and standards.

But in the meantime, as long as people are breaking rules, then anything becomes fair game
until this settles down. The sooner the better. We learn from this why we need to have agreed rules, and not let things get out of hand.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A false OP yet again.

Define the term "execution" and consider whether the target is actively aiding and abetting the enemy.

Do other opportunities exist to capture the target?

Review the President's war powers.

What a silly OP.

 

[amrchaos]

You know, in the case of piracy, the Navy is authorized to kill them, be they citizens or not.

I say the only difference between terrorism and piracy is the use of a ship--it is the same if the terrorists hijacks a plane or boat.

However, if you don't have proof nor catch the pirate in the act, its become a legal matter.

 

[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.

 

[washamericom]

frankly i'm really surprised this has become a campaign issue.

eric holder , you remember, wanted to try the guitmo detainees in New York city, it was as bad an idea as buzzing manhattan with airforce one, Trump probably won't do that, because of his New York values.


Can the president kill you? The short answer is: Yes, but not legally. Yet, President Obama has established a secret process that involves officials from the Departments of Justice and Defense, the CIA, and the White House senior staff whereby candidates are proposed for execution and the collective wisdom of the officials then recommends execution to the president, who then accepts or rejects the recommendation.

Can the President Legally Kill Americans?


i have to consider, if obama had been republican would the libs be as ok with it as they are now.

It is happening here.

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.

When word of this got out, the president came under heavy criticism. He responded by claiming he had the lawful authority to kill any dangerous person whose arrest was impractical. He also claimed he had a legal opinion from Attorney General Eric Holder that justified the killings. He then dispatched Holder to explain the lawful basis for the killings at a speech at Northwestern Law School. The speech produced even more criticism and, eventually, the revelation of a portion of the legal opinion.


no patriot would argue that awlaki isn't better off dead dead dead, so are we all.

in another twist of constitutionalism is the immediate imprisonment of the video that caused benghazi murders according to the administrative's story, brought in for questioning three days after hillary promised to have him subsequently jailed. (another thread)

i'd like everyone's opinion, but if any legal people would weigh in that would be awesome.

libs tell me why it's ok please.

Whether it's a US citizen or noncitizen doing it, this is why "terrorism" that bypasses due process
creates this catch 22: Do we or do we not apply "due process" when the attacker doesn't agree
to follow the same rules of engagement and civil standards of international laws?

Because terroristic attacks that aren't done by an organized nation can't be addressed as a nation,
this blurs the line and becomes a grey area.

As many people believe we should still respond by following the rules we are bound by; just because someone else decides to act criminal does not give us license to respond as lawlessly.

Others say that in order to enforce effective DETERRENCE, preemptive strikes and fighting
fire with fire is necessary; ie use the same tactics back on them, where due process is no longer required. So if terrorists don't follow the rules, then we don't follow the rules when responding to them either. Lt. Col. Allen West used this tactic during an interrogation and shot past a man's head to compel information that saved his troops; by the letter, it was against civil rules to do this and he got disciplined for it, but by natural laws it was effective to speak the same language as the terrorists to get anywhere. So it was the right thing to do overall, but broke the literal rules.

Obviously, we can't have Lt. Cols and Presidents bending the rules to try to deal with terrorists on terms that color outside the lines.

The point is to get back on track where everyone is in agreement NOT to bypass due process,
or suppress the right to petition in the first place, which otherwise causes violent outbursts to break through the political censorship obstructing the democratic process.

If we respect the civil democratic process to begin with, we can avoid these sidetracking attacks altogether and just stick with civil procedures and standards.

But in the meantime, as long as people are breaking rules, then anything becomes fair game
until this settles down. The sooner the better. We learn from this why we need to have agreed rules, and not let things get out of hand.

thank you very much, this is the type of educated response i was hoping for. i suppose enemy of the state comes into play. i would whack juliam assange or priviteer manning if i had the chance. no due process could usher in a new era of vigilantism, then comes thunderdome. i don't think obama has a clue what he's started here.

thanks again emilynghiem for the great post.

 

[emilynghiem]

A false OP yet again.

Define the term "execution" and consider whether the target is actively aiding and abetting the enemy.

Do other opportunities exist to capture the target?

Review the President's war powers.

What a silly OP.

Part of the disagreement is whether to treat such people as
* enemy combatants
* criminal attackers who are still under criminal laws of due process
etc.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A false OP yet again.

Define the term "execution" and consider whether the target is actively aiding and abetting the enemy.

Do other opportunities exist to capture the target?

Review the President's war powers.

What a silly OP.

Part of the disagreement is whether to treat such people as
* enemy combatants
* criminal attackers who are still under criminal laws of due process
etc.

They are citizens who have willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily become enemy combatants aiding and abetting the enemy.

 

[Timmy]

Killing Americans wh/o due process?

Is this a black lives matter thread ?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

A false OP yet again.

Define the term "execution" and consider whether the target is actively aiding and abetting the enemy.

Do other opportunities exist to capture the target?

Review the President's war powers.

What a silly OP.

Part of the disagreement is whether to treat such people as
* enemy combatants
* criminal attackers who are still under criminal laws of due process
etc.

The problem is that government is beginning to identify more and more activities as terrorism because they know they can more easily prosecute terrorist than criminals. It is even becoming a political insult. I really think we should begin to reverse course and maybe begin to treat terrorist like criminals so that we can stop this very negative trend.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If Americans leave the country & take up arms with our enemies kill them on site. Other than that take them to court.

 

[washamericom]

What does it say in the constitution when the government takes up arms against the people?[/QUOTE]


you know, there are a lot of bleeding heart liberals that think we don't need assault rifles to hunt deer, which is true.
assault weapons are for an out of control government (i have to parse my words carefully so as not to be construed as sedition because i'm on government watch lists, having a high profile conservative website in development). i don't dare total free speech it until obama is gone). the other thing, and i've said this before, it's the mobs of roving mad max people that will collect vehicles and weapons as the scatter from the cities, that whom i need protection from, not isis in vermont, not yet.

here is my point, if some people like obama or hillary separate the military from the people (martial law), will they be able to dronekill, rural people defending their homes and families from fellow citizens and a government melt down ??

i'm just trying to look ahead a little bit.

i want to make very clear, when it comes to the second amendment, i am in no way criticizing, the wonderful fabulous government we have now.

 

[Moonglow]

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?

That is not the question..

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Killing Americans wh/o due process?

Is this a black lives matter thread ?

And here like clockwork is the left injecting race into

Killing Americans wh/o due process?

Is this a black lives matter thread ?

And just like clockwork we have one of our resident dumbfucks injecting race into a thread where race is not an issue.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

wash, LEO can drone you now if you armed, dangerous, bunkered in, and won't surrender.

 

[washamericom]

You know, in the case of piracy, the Navy is authorized to kill them, be they citizens or not.

I say the only difference between terrorism and piracy is the use of a ship--it is the same if the terrorists hijacks a plane or boat.

However, if you don't have proof nor catch the pirate in the act, its become a legal matter.

thank you, that i didn't know.