Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Intense]

Sets a bad precedent that could come back at some future point to bite citizens in the ass. Who knows what the future holds as to what extent our government morphs towards tryanny?
Hell, even one day 'The T', or any freedom-loving outspoken citizen could be targeted as deemed by our government in the aforementioned scenario; as a precedent, afterall, has been set.

True, and anyone who doesn't realize this is stupid.

If it has gone that far it is a bit late to be waking up to it, just sayin. This was planned for the exact exposure it's getting, even the timing. They put allot into this production. You don't think this could have happened with a snipers bullet, poison, an accident? This is for your benefit.

 

[Dune]

Sets a bad precedent that could come back at some future point to bite citizens in the ass. Who knows what the future holds as to what extent our government morphs towards tryanny?
Hell, even one day 'The T', or any freedom-loving outspoken citizen could be targeted as deemed by our government in the aforementioned scenario; as a precedent, afterall, has been set.

True, and anyone who doesn't realize this is stupid.

So you believe he was just a freedom-loving outspoken citizen?

I am just as glad he is dead as the rest of you, however, this is a new, unprecedented power assumed by the POTUS, a very dangerous power and an un-needed one.

There was no reason not to try him in absentia, convict him of treason, and sentence him to death. Then the result would be legal

 

[Dune]

I've been reading about Anwar al-Awlaki for almost an hour now, and his behavior seems to shadow a character who was linked to 3 9/11 hijackers, a Christmas 2010 wannabe bomber, a lot of training of alQaeda to take out American targets, and Hasan the Ft. Hood shooter who murdered 12 people at Ft. Hood in 2009.

He was lying, sneaky, intelligent, the great pretender, and traitor all rolled into one. He became a target after phone calls between him and Hasan took place shortly before. Someone bought into his case pleading his own innocence in 9/11, but he knew 3 of the hijackers, and it is now believed he helped them and had lied about not helping them.

We need to review our citizenship requirements of people who are hostile to the USA, and revoke their citizenship when they become enemies. This creep has been our enemy for many years, long before 9/11. He hated us, lived among us, disowned us, participated in killing thousands of Americans, trained others to do likewise, and encouraged yet others to commit mass murders in America.

He's the Charles Manson of the Muslim world.

No, all we had to do was try him in absentia, convict him of treason, then his killing would be legal.

Again, we don't know for sure that the act was above Presidential Jurisdiction. There really may be more to this than what we see.

The constitution clearly limits the powers of the government. The 5th amendment clearly states that people shall not be deprived of their lives without due process.

 

[Intense]

True, and anyone who doesn't realize this is stupid.

So you believe he was just a freedom-loving outspoken citizen?

I am just as glad he is dead as the rest of you, however, this is a new, unprecedented power assumed by the POTUS, a very dangerous power and an un-needed one.

There was no reason not to try him in absentia, convict him of treason, and sentence him to death. Then the result would be legal

It may not be all that new.

 

[BlindBoo]

True, and anyone who doesn't realize this is stupid.

So you believe he was just a freedom-loving outspoken citizen?

I am just as glad he is dead as the rest of you, however, this is a new, unprecedented power assumed by the POTUS, a very dangerous power and an un-needed one.

There was no reason not to try him in absentia, convict him of treason, and sentence him to death. Then the result would be legal

Not only was he not a freedom- loving outspoken citizen but also was an operative in the organization that attacked us on 9-11 and continues to plot attacks against us. It's not new nor was it illegal. I think he was still wanted dead or alive by Yemem too. We've been trying to kill him for a while now. Too bad Clinton didn't have Drones in 1998 but, then again his detractors may very well have railed against him then too.

 

[Dune]

So you believe he was just a freedom-loving outspoken citizen?

I am just as glad he is dead as the rest of you, however, this is a new, unprecedented power assumed by the POTUS, a very dangerous power and an un-needed one.

There was no reason not to try him in absentia, convict him of treason, and sentence him to death. Then the result would be legal

Not only was he not a freedom- loving outspoken citizen but also was an operative in the organization that attacked us on 9-11 and continues to plot attacks against us. It's not new nor was it illegal. I think he was still wanted dead or alive by Yemem too. We've been trying to kill him for a while now. Too bad Clinton didn't have Drones in 1998 but, then again his detractors may very well have railed against him then too.

Nothing which you said changes the fact the the POTUS ordered the death of a citizen in direct violation of the 5th ammendment.

 

[BlindBoo]

I am just as glad he is dead as the rest of you, however, this is a new, unprecedented power assumed by the POTUS, a very dangerous power and an un-needed one.

There was no reason not to try him in absentia, convict him of treason, and sentence him to death. Then the result would be legal

Not only was he not a freedom- loving outspoken citizen but also was an operative in the organization that attacked us on 9-11 and continues to plot attacks against us. It's not new nor was it illegal. I think he was still wanted dead or alive by Yemem too. We've been trying to kill him for a while now. Too bad Clinton didn't have Drones in 1998 but, then again his detractors may very well have railed against him then too.

Nothing which you said changes the fact the the POTUS ordered the death of a citizen in direct violation of the 5th ammendment.

Again I have to disagree.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I think al Qeada represents a public danger worthy of granting this exception.

 

[Ringel05]

No, all we had to do was try him in absentia, convict him of treason, then his killing would be legal.

Again, we don't know for sure that the act was above Presidential Jurisdiction. There really may be more to this than what we see.

The constitution clearly limits the powers of the government. The 5th amendment clearly states that people shall not be deprived of their lives without due process.

The way I see it he had repeatedly called for jihad against all Americans which if he considered himself one would have meant jihad against him so he had already, by 'de facto', renounced his citizenship. Besides it was the use of an international law that the administration used to target him as a terrorist.
And people wonder why many are against international laws trumping the constitution.

 

[syrenn]

True, and anyone who doesn't realize this is stupid.

So you believe he was just a freedom-loving outspoken citizen?

I am just as glad he is dead as the rest of you, however, this is a new, unprecedented power assumed by the POTUS, a very dangerous power and an un-needed one.

There was no reason not to try him in absentia, convict him of treason, and sentence him to death. Then the result would be legal

Nothing new at all. Clinton was all lined up for the kill shot on osama..and did not take it. That does not mean he did not have the power to do so. He chose not to take the shot.

 

[Xchel]

Ok, getting a clearer picture on what the OP is discussing...the person on a battlefield taking arms up against Us soldiers is a very different circumstance from someone within the confines of the USA...you take up arms on a battlefield....be prepared for a sniper to take you out...no trial needed..sad really, but it is the way it works when the country is at war...if you fight for the enemy be prepared to be treated as the enemy and get shot back at..that is self defense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?

An American citizen who was a traitor, working for the enemy. Not only am I for it, I wish we could have recovered the body and hung it on a pike in front of the Pentagon till only a husk remains.

Traitors deserve no better

Was he tried in a court of law? or was the information heresay?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you believe he was just a freedom-loving outspoken citizen?

I am just as glad he is dead as the rest of you, however, this is a new, unprecedented power assumed by the POTUS, a very dangerous power and an un-needed one.

There was no reason not to try him in absentia, convict him of treason, and sentence him to death. Then the result would be legal

It may not be all that new.

I remember a time when the left got all pissy when a certian adminastration let it get out that it was going to target certain laders of known terrorist country's. Do you remember that?

 

[Xchel]

If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?

 

[Full-Auto]

If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?

The argument here is whether committing acts of terror against the US exceeds criminality.

It does. The right for due process involves criminal actions not actions of war.

 

[Xchel]

If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?

The argument here is whether committing acts of terror against the US exceeds criminality.

It does. The right for due process involves criminal actions not actions of war.

Can you show me where in the constitution it says that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm a bit confused here. What exactly is the argument?

if someone is caught in the act of being a terrorist.
Or someone who has been deemed a terroist by the government without the benifit of a trail by their peers?

 

[WorldWatcher]

If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?

The argument here is whether committing acts of terror against the US exceeds criminality.

It does. The right for due process involves criminal actions not actions of war.

Can you show me where in the constitution it says that?

United States Constitution, Amendment 5:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​

Action Performed by Military - Check

Time of War - Check

Public Danger - Check



The 5th Amendment is not applicable in time of war or when the individual is a clear public danger. The fact of the matter is that the head of a terrorist organization that has declared war on the United States meets both conditions to be exempted from the 5th Amendments Due Process protections.



>>>>

 

[jillian]

If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?

yemen has a political problem in much the same was as pakistan did vis a vis bin laden. yemen has almost no government and is almost totally drenched in AQ and it's adherants. it is the new training ground that became hospitable as other areas became less so. we couldn't count on the yemeni government to do anything.

as for whether we were legally wrong in targeting an "american citizen" who fled to yemen and was one of the most effective means of rallying homegrown terrorists?? i haven't looked at the law on the subject.

but i can't say i'm upset with the result.

 

[Full-Auto]

If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?

The argument here is whether committing acts of terror against the US exceeds criminality.

It does. The right for due process involves criminal actions not actions of war.

Can you show me where in the constitution it says that?

Dont have a copy handy.

However I have been brushing up on the federalist papers. It was in one of the topics in those essays.

If you doubt it, consider the civil war. Its implications etc. The founders also had no issue with taking out those causing insurrection either.

 

[jillian]

The argument here is whether committing acts of terror against the US exceeds criminality.

It does. The right for due process involves criminal actions not actions of war.

Can you show me where in the constitution it says that?

Dont have a copy handy.

However I have been brushing up on the federalist papers. It was in one of the topics in those essays.

If you doubt it, consider the civil war. Its implications etc. The founders also had no issue with taking out those causing insurrection either.

not to be picky, but the federalist papers aren't law. they're an interesting read, though.