Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Ringel05]

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.

I was trying to keep it simple if you catch my drift.......

 

[Ringel05]

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?

You do realize this is no longer the 1940s?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Why is water boardng known terrorist no good but assassinating American citizens without due process a good thing?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

If they were in a leadership position of an organization that flew planes into building occupied by thousands of American citizens, promoted a member of the military to walk into a gathering of fellow soldiers and open fire, planted explosives in the underwear of a bomber attempting to kill hundreds, and the individual was hiding in a foreign country outside the jurisdiction of homeland law enforcement...


Ya I would.

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.

Sorry, in time of war you don't have the ability to get search warrants and indictments to the sniper in the field that has the bad guy in his sights for a few moments.

Sorry, the scumbag was in a leadership position in an organization that brought War to our shores and killed our citizens.

Let the world understand, you bring on War against the United States and kill our citizens we will hunt you down and there is no whole deep enough to protect you.

I was an electronics technician and reconnaissance operator in the military, much of the time the data gathered was strategic in nature - but every once in awhile you get your hands on something that has tactical significance and you act or loose your chance to capitalize.


>>>>

 

[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

Why is water boardng known terrorist no good but assassinating American citizens without due process a good thing?

Because the constitution doesn't allow one, but does allow the other.

 

[Si modo]

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

And imagine if Copernicus, Rutherford, Bohr, Pasteur, Darwin, etc. followed the pack, too. That would have been pretty cool.

 

[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

And imagine if Copernicus, Rutherford, Bohr, Pasteur, Darwin, etc. followed the pack, too. That would have been pretty cool.

Perhaps someone can explain the difference between observable science and opinions on current events to you

 

[Rozman]

When they join a terrorist organization and take up arms against and plot to kill Americans...
Why is this even a question?

 

[Si modo]

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

And imagine if Copernicus, Rutherford, Bohr, Pasteur, Darwin, etc. followed the pack, too. That would have been pretty cool.

Perhaps someone can explain the difference between observable science and opinions on current events to you

Perhaps someone can explain the difference between and illogical point and your post.

Wait.

There is none.

 

[RadiomanATL]

And imagine if Copernicus, Rutherford, Bohr, Pasteur, Darwin, etc. followed the pack, too. That would have been pretty cool.

Perhaps someone can explain the difference between observable science and opinions on current events to you

Perhaps someone can explain the difference between and illogical point and your post.

Wait.

There is none.

Not anyone's fault but your own that the point sailed over your head.

 

[Si modo]

Perhaps someone can explain the difference between observable science and opinions on current events to you

Perhaps someone can explain the difference between and illogical point and your post.

Wait.

There is none.

Not anyone's fault but your own that the point sailed over your head.

Bandwagon fallacies, like yours, usually do sail over my head. They are irrelevant.

The more you know.............

 

[Dune]

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.



>>>>

The War on Terror.




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




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]


>>>>

The war on a verb?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Shut up moron.

 

[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?

You do realize this is no longer the 1940s?

So the constitution is no longer relevent?

 

[Dune]

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

Why is water boardng known terrorist no good but assassinating American citizens without due process a good thing?

Because the constitution doesn't allow one, but does allow the other.

Uhm, no, the constitution specificaly prohibits depriving one of one's life, without due process.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The War on Terror.




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




The War on Terror.




1st plane crashing into world trade center - YouTube


>>>>

The war on a verb?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Shut up moron.

Translation, my ass is getting kicked and I'm embarrassed so I will now switch to personal insults.


>>>>

 

[RadiomanATL]

Why is water boardng known terrorist no good but assassinating American citizens without due process a good thing?

Because the constitution doesn't allow one, but does allow the other.

Uhm, no, the constitution specificaly prohibits depriving one of one's life, without due process.

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;

I guess that part must be missing from your copy of the constitution.

 

[Amelia]

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.

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.



>>>>

You guys are mixing up the clauses in the fifth amendment.

The portion you are bolding and red-ing in the first clause applies to those who are serving in our armed forces. Awlaki was not a member of our military.

The "due process" clause is later and distinct from the first clause. That still applies to the rest of us citizens who aren't in the U.S. military. No exception is given in that clause for times of war or public danger.







.

 

[Dune]

When they join a terrorist organization and take up arms against and plot to kill Americans...
Why is this even a question?

If it is that cut and dry, hold a hearing in absentia, convict of treason, if the evidence so supports, sentence to death, legal and leaves the 5th ammendment intact.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why is water boardng known terrorist no good but assassinating American citizens without due process a good thing?

Because the constitution doesn't allow one, but does allow the other.

Uhm, no, the constitution specificaly prohibits depriving one of one's life, without due process.

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."
​

Except by military forces in time of war (or clear public danger), the strike was conducted by military aircraft, al Qaeda has declared war on the United States through its actions and presents a clear public danger and the leaders were targeted because they are leader(s) in that organization.

Sorry, no Constitutional requirement there to try them in court.


>>>>

 

[Dune]

The War on Terror.




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




The War on Terror.




1st plane crashing into world trade center - YouTube


>>>>

The war on a verb?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Shut up moron.

Translation, my ass is getting kicked and I'm embarrassed so I will now switch to personal insults.


>>>>

Translation: I cited a war against a verb as justification for the murder without due process of an american citizen.

Since I don't have a legitimate reason to throw the constitution in the dumpster, I will pretend there is a declared war underway as justification for this illegal act.