Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Xchel]

targeting an "american citizen" who fled to yemen

He didn't flee to Yemen, he grew up there.

 

[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?

No answer yet.

 

[Xchel]

As far as I know he wasn't caught in the act of anything. We know that the government says he exchanged emails with Hassan, but we don't know what any of those emails said.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As far as I know he wasn't caught in the act of anything. We know that the government says he exchanged emails with Hassan, but we don't know what any of those emails said.

Who is your comment to?

 

[Xchel]

to no one in particular...it was an in general comment.

 

[Dune]

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.

Sorry, there was no battlefield, no declared war.
This happened in Yemen, what war are we fighting in Yemen?

 

[Xchel]

Dune, you have missed my entire comments....I am not referring to this person..I am talking about when it occurs on a battlefield..that being the exception...

 

[Dune]

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.

A trial, even in absentia would have determined if he were guilty.

 

[Dune]

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.



>>>>

What war? What country did we declare war against? What is the name of this "war"?

Is there proof of public danger or is it hear-say?
Where is the proof?
Cite proof.

 

[Intense]

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.

There are circumstances where Actions are protected under the Constitution and take precedence, or are exempt. Treaties are only one example. War Powers are another.

 

[Dune]

Dune, you have missed my entire comments....I am not referring to this person..I am talking about when it occurs on a battlefield..that being the exception...

O.K., sorry, but I have heard nearly the same argument as to why this killing was legal.

 

[Xchel]

There are circumstances where Actions are protected under the Constitution and take precedence, or are exempt. Treaties are only one example. War Powers are another.

We aren't at war with Yemen.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dune, you have missed my entire comments....I am not referring to this person..I am talking about when it occurs on a battlefield..that being the exception...

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."​

The exception to due process is for action by military in time of war or public danger, no where does it limit it to a specific battlefield.

Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States when it flew two planes into the World Trade Center, flew a plan into the Pentagon, and attempted to fly a plane into the Capital Building.

Time of War - Check

Military Action - Check


This was a military action against a terrorist organization that declared war on the United States, the head of that organization is fair game.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thomas Jefferson - "I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

 

[RadiomanATL]

An enemy of the State is no longer a citizen. I agree with this assassination.

If you are in a war and you join the other side, your side has the right to kill you.

Nixon considered John Lennon an enemy of the state. ETA: Sorry for not including any American names. I don't have his watch list at hand. But I know there were some Americans on it.



Obama's White House considers returning veterans, single-issue voters, abortion opponents, and gun rights activists potential enemies of the state.



We are well into slippery slope territory here. Halfway down the ravine. It's one thing to be glad that a terrorist has been taken out of commission. It is another thing to be cavalier about the possible constitutional ramifications of this. This is serious stuff. We are not treating it with the sobriety it deserves.

Are you really comparing John Lennon to an Al Qaeda terrorist?

Talk about taking things to the point of ridiculousness.

 

[Xchel]

This was a military action against a terrorist organization that declared war on the United States, the head of that organization is fair game.

really...since when did he replace Bin Laden? I didn't realize that he was that replacement. I also don't see any indictment against him by the US...which they could have gotten with evidence and I would feel a miniscule better about us indiscriminately taking him out in a country we aren't at war with.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>

What war?

The War on Terror.

What country did we declare war against?

Not a country, the war against a terrorist organization that declared war on us and has killed thousands of American citizens.

What is the name of this "war"?

The War on Terror.

Is there proof of public danger or is it hear-say?
Where is the proof?
Cite proof.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE82r4ycQs4]1st plane crashing into world trade center - YouTube[/ame]


>>>>

 

[Xchel]

WW, there was also a time when we considered folks who sympathized with communism as damn near terrorists...would you have been ok with targeting them for assasination without trial? Remember those laws? All struck down by the US Supreme Court...it isn't against the law to have controversial speech or even speech against the government..it is against the law to act on those beliefs though...again I want to see at least an indictment before we take someone out with a sniper rifle.

 

[Intense]

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.

The Federalist Papers serve as a means to interpret Intent behind the Constitution. In many cases it is they are plain and to the point, blowing away misinterpretation and misapplication.

There are circumstances where Congress, the Courts, the Executive Branch are granted Special Powers, whether we are aware or not. Not knowing the specifics, being classified, we cannot come to a conclusion, from where we stand. Obviously, at some level, the President, Congressional Committees, and the Courts are in the loop. Because we are not, is not conclusive that They acted Illegally. My bet is that they acted on Legal Authority. If you don't like that Legal Authority, stop Further Empowering them. Reverse course. Join the Tea Party.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It's a different experience for me to be standing alone like this against so many. I stand in bemusement.


Liberals say we shouldn't have waterboarded KSM (or anyone else) but now they're fine with targeting a specific American citizen for death without so much as an indictment.


Conservatives wanted a constitutional explanation for every bill passed in the current congress, but today don't care about the Bill of Rights.

If everyone from the left and right is calling you an idiot, the problem isn't with everyone else it's with you