Terrorist Killed Legal or Illegal?

[Avorysuds]

Yeah, it does.

And this is what should have happened under Bush: any terrorists should have been killed, not put in Gitmo. Once they are in Gitmo, they do deserve due process under our constitution.

Your position is that it is constitutional to kill people but not to arrest them? That will certainly solve a lot of state budget problems, we no longer need trials or prisons, just kill everyone who we dislike.

Nope, not my position at all. It is constitutional to kill someone that joins a terrorist group and actively calls for others to kill Americans.

I know it kills you as you'd rather see terrorists given free access to our airliners.

Well, tough fucking shit.

Really it's not.. Unless you can point to where it says that in the constitution without a wild interpretation that just so happens to magically fit the opposite of what the constitution says.

 

[Ravi]

Your position is that it is constitutional to kill people but not to arrest them? That will certainly solve a lot of state budget problems, we no longer need trials or prisons, just kill everyone who we dislike.

Nope, not my position at all. It is constitutional to kill someone that joins a terrorist group and actively calls for others to kill Americans.

I know it kills you as you'd rather see terrorists given free access to our airliners.

Well, tough fucking shit.

Really it's not.. Unless you can point to where it says that in the constitution without a wild interpretation that just so happens to magically fit the opposite of what the constitution says.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is constitutional to kill someone that joins a terrorist group and actively calls for others to kill Americans.

You need to cite the case law in support.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Now you need to cite the case law interpreting Article I, Section 8, Paragraph One indicating the Constitution ‘authorizes’ the government ‘to kill someone that joins a terrorist group and actively calls for others to kill Americans.’

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, it does.

And this is what should have happened under Bush: any terrorists should have been killed, not put in Gitmo. Once they are in Gitmo, they do deserve due process under our constitution.

Your position is that it is constitutional to kill people but not to arrest them? That will certainly solve a lot of state budget problems, we no longer need trials or prisons, just kill everyone who we dislike.

Nope, not my position at all. It is constitutional to kill someone that joins a terrorist group and actively calls for others to kill Americans.

I know it kills you as you'd rather see terrorists given free access to our airliners.

Well, tough fucking shit.

I see, it is constitutional to kill people who say things you do not like, but if they actually break a law we have to use due process.

Glad you clarified that.

 

[FA_Q2]

What proof do we have that he was actively engaged in anything? All I have seen is vague allegations made by government officials, and no evidence.

And what type of proof would be acceptable to you? You do realize that today's field of battle is far different than that of the past. Do you believe that the government is lying when they claim that he is part of the terrorist network and planning/recruiting terrorist actions against the us.
At some point, there has to be a way to wage war against terrorism. You can't have a trial every time that the military has a legitimate target. It is also not like the government simply skipped the judicial branch either. A judge had stamped the OK on the target as well. If you disagree with what happened then give us an alternative that makes sense. I don't believe that there is one.

We have no, repeat no, proof that Alwaki did anything beyond making a few videos that called for people to attack the country. When asked directly what evidence actually exist the White House claims state secrets and refuses to answer.

A battlefield is still a place where there are people on one side that are actively shooting at people on the other side who are shooting back. If that is not happening, it is not a battlefield. The government is always happy to issue elaborate justifications for its actions, but we should not allow them to get away with it.

By the way, if anyone told you a judge stamped an OK on this at any point they were lying to you. The only judge that ruled on it at all basically said he did not have the power to revue the decision to order the death of a person the administration deems a threat. That is a far cry from saying it is right.

What we have here is the government ordering the death of a human being without an indictment or trial simply because it was easier than trying to prove he did something.

No, as I have pointed out repeatedly it is not about killing someone because it is 'easier.' It is about eliminating a valid military target that cannot be captured due to location. You frame this as though he was in Germany or Italy where we have close ties and the possibility to arrest or extract. It was not and his arrest would have put many lives at risk. He was an enemy combatant. PERIOD. If you think that today's battlefields are comprised of lines and people shooting at each other then you are sadly mistaken. We haven't seen that type of combat for years. Almost all of today's battles come in the form of roadside bombs and other such attacks. We found out where those were being sent from. That is no different than a missile. It was 'launched' from him and the military found him and eliminated the threat. This attack was no different than a hundred other drone attacks on military targets. The only reason that we are here on this board is that this target just happened to be a citizen. Unfortunately for him, that does not give him a magical shield to hide behind as he launches those 'missiles.' Your citizenship is not going to protect you when you place yourself IN A LOCATION WHERE CAPTURE AND IMPRISONMENT IS NOT A POSSIBILITY.


If this was a policy that was used in a different situation like a country where we do have such capabilities then you would have a point. This, however, is not one of those situations.

 

[JoeB131]

I was murging 3 threads and tried to delete just one duplicate post from it and the whole thread disappeared. My most humble apologies.
Having said that....carry on....

My thought.

I think talking about legal or illegal is sort of pointless during a war.

Murder and arson are perfectly acceptable during a war. It's war.

This guy was on enemy territory plotting against the US. he was a valid target.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And what type of proof would be acceptable to you? You do realize that today's field of battle is far different than that of the past. Do you believe that the government is lying when they claim that he is part of the terrorist network and planning/recruiting terrorist actions against the us.
At some point, there has to be a way to wage war against terrorism. You can't have a trial every time that the military has a legitimate target. It is also not like the government simply skipped the judicial branch either. A judge had stamped the OK on the target as well. If you disagree with what happened then give us an alternative that makes sense. I don't believe that there is one.

We have no, repeat no, proof that Alwaki did anything beyond making a few videos that called for people to attack the country. When asked directly what evidence actually exist the White House claims state secrets and refuses to answer.

A battlefield is still a place where there are people on one side that are actively shooting at people on the other side who are shooting back. If that is not happening, it is not a battlefield. The government is always happy to issue elaborate justifications for its actions, but we should not allow them to get away with it.

By the way, if anyone told you a judge stamped an OK on this at any point they were lying to you. The only judge that ruled on it at all basically said he did not have the power to revue the decision to order the death of a person the administration deems a threat. That is a far cry from saying it is right.

What we have here is the government ordering the death of a human being without an indictment or trial simply because it was easier than trying to prove he did something.

No, as I have pointed out repeatedly it is not about killing someone because it is 'easier.' It is about eliminating a valid military target that cannot be captured due to location. You frame this as though he was in Germany or Italy where we have close ties and the possibility to arrest or extract. It was not and his arrest would have put many lives at risk. He was an enemy combatant. PERIOD. If you think that today's battlefields are comprised of lines and people shooting at each other then you are sadly mistaken. We haven't seen that type of combat for years. Almost all of today's battles come in the form of roadside bombs and other such attacks. We found out where those were being sent from. That is no different than a missile. It was 'launched' from him and the military found him and eliminated the threat. This attack was no different than a hundred other drone attacks on military targets. The only reason that we are here on this board is that this target just happened to be a citizen. Unfortunately for him, that does not give him a magical shield to hide behind as he launches those 'missiles.' Your citizenship is not going to protect you when you place yourself IN A LOCATION WHERE CAPTURE AND IMPRISONMENT IS NOT A POSSIBILITY.


If this was a policy that was used in a different situation like a country where we do have such capabilities then you would have a point. This, however, is not one of those situations.

No I do not. I am saying the fact that Obama ordered his death without any indictment or trial, without presenting any evidence to anyone of his alleged crimes, and then carried out that order, raises serious constitutional questions. If he can do that simply because the person is on foreign soil, what is to stop him from doing it if someone is hiding in a remote area of the Rocky Mountains? If one is legal, why is the other illegal?

 

[FA_Q2]

We have no, repeat no, proof that Alwaki did anything beyond making a few videos that called for people to attack the country. When asked directly what evidence actually exist the White House claims state secrets and refuses to answer.

A battlefield is still a place where there are people on one side that are actively shooting at people on the other side who are shooting back. If that is not happening, it is not a battlefield. The government is always happy to issue elaborate justifications for its actions, but we should not allow them to get away with it.

By the way, if anyone told you a judge stamped an OK on this at any point they were lying to you. The only judge that ruled on it at all basically said he did not have the power to revue the decision to order the death of a person the administration deems a threat. That is a far cry from saying it is right.

What we have here is the government ordering the death of a human being without an indictment or trial simply because it was easier than trying to prove he did something.

No, as I have pointed out repeatedly it is not about killing someone because it is 'easier.' It is about eliminating a valid military target that cannot be captured due to location. You frame this as though he was in Germany or Italy where we have close ties and the possibility to arrest or extract. It was not and his arrest would have put many lives at risk. He was an enemy combatant. PERIOD. If you think that today's battlefields are comprised of lines and people shooting at each other then you are sadly mistaken. We haven't seen that type of combat for years. Almost all of today's battles come in the form of roadside bombs and other such attacks. We found out where those were being sent from. That is no different than a missile. It was 'launched' from him and the military found him and eliminated the threat. This attack was no different than a hundred other drone attacks on military targets. The only reason that we are here on this board is that this target just happened to be a citizen. Unfortunately for him, that does not give him a magical shield to hide behind as he launches those 'missiles.' Your citizenship is not going to protect you when you place yourself IN A LOCATION WHERE CAPTURE AND IMPRISONMENT IS NOT A POSSIBILITY.


If this was a policy that was used in a different situation like a country where we do have such capabilities then you would have a point. This, however, is not one of those situations.

No I do not. I am saying the fact that Obama ordered his death without any indictment or trial, without presenting any evidence to anyone of his alleged crimes, and then carried out that order, raises serious constitutional questions. If he can do that simply because the person is on foreign soil, what is to stop him from doing it if someone is hiding in a remote area of the Rocky Mountains? If one is legal, why is the other illegal?

One is legal because he is in enemy territory where capture is not possible and the other is not legal because he would then not be on enemy territory and capture would be possible. One is a valad MILITARY target. The other is not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, as I have pointed out repeatedly it is not about killing someone because it is 'easier.' It is about eliminating a valid military target that cannot be captured due to location. You frame this as though he was in Germany or Italy where we have close ties and the possibility to arrest or extract. It was not and his arrest would have put many lives at risk. He was an enemy combatant. PERIOD. If you think that today's battlefields are comprised of lines and people shooting at each other then you are sadly mistaken. We haven't seen that type of combat for years. Almost all of today's battles come in the form of roadside bombs and other such attacks. We found out where those were being sent from. That is no different than a missile. It was 'launched' from him and the military found him and eliminated the threat. This attack was no different than a hundred other drone attacks on military targets. The only reason that we are here on this board is that this target just happened to be a citizen. Unfortunately for him, that does not give him a magical shield to hide behind as he launches those 'missiles.' Your citizenship is not going to protect you when you place yourself IN A LOCATION WHERE CAPTURE AND IMPRISONMENT IS NOT A POSSIBILITY.


If this was a policy that was used in a different situation like a country where we do have such capabilities then you would have a point. This, however, is not one of those situations.

No I do not. I am saying the fact that Obama ordered his death without any indictment or trial, without presenting any evidence to anyone of his alleged crimes, and then carried out that order, raises serious constitutional questions. If he can do that simply because the person is on foreign soil, what is to stop him from doing it if someone is hiding in a remote area of the Rocky Mountains? If one is legal, why is the other illegal?

One is legal because he is in enemy territory where capture is not possible and the other is not legal because he would then not be on enemy territory and capture would be possible. One is a valad MILITARY target. The other is not.

Wouldn't it be easier to admit you don't have an answer rather than blather?

 

[FA_Q2]

No I do not. I am saying the fact that Obama ordered his death without any indictment or trial, without presenting any evidence to anyone of his alleged crimes, and then carried out that order, raises serious constitutional questions. If he can do that simply because the person is on foreign soil, what is to stop him from doing it if someone is hiding in a remote area of the Rocky Mountains? If one is legal, why is the other illegal?

One is legal because he is in enemy territory where capture is not possible and the other is not legal because he would then not be on enemy territory and capture would be possible. One is a valad MILITARY target. The other is not.

Wouldn't it be easier to admit you don't have an answer rather than blather?

I could ask you the same question as you continue to evade the FACTS.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If what the government said about him is true, he should have been charged with Treason, in my opinion. The President chose not to follow the Constitution in that regard.

Instead, an American citizen had the label of "specially designated global terrorist" applied to him, making it illegal for him to have a U.S. attorney defend him even if it was pro-bono, without being granted a special license by the same government that placed the label on him.

As ugly as the thought is, an American citizen is afforded the right of due process, even when it is pertaining to someone many of us deem vile, and even when it isn't convenient.

In my opinion, the Constitution was ignored in many ways, because the end justifies the means with the President, and those under him.

 

[Amelia]

Sounds like they might have had trouble getting a charge to stick which would have carried a penalty of more than 15 years:

U.S. eyes terror charges for Yemeni cleric - USATODAY.com

(from September 2010)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One is legal because he is in enemy territory where capture is not possible and the other is not legal because he would then not be on enemy territory and capture would be possible. One is a valad MILITARY target. The other is not.

Wouldn't it be easier to admit you don't have an answer rather than blather?

I could ask you the same question as you continue to evade the FACTS.

I am not evading the facts.

1. Anwar al-Awlaki made a bunch of videos calling for Jihad against the US.
2. Obama put him on shoot on site list without explaining why.
3. No one has ever publicly tied him to any attacks or plans.
4. Obama confirmed the kill order when he sent 3 Hellfire missiles after him from miles away.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, the US government has declared it can do anything it wants, and you agree with them.

Please note, the problem here is not who they killed, it is that they did it at all.