Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Dune]

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.

I guess the fact that we are not at war with Yemen, either declared or undeclared is missing from you awareness.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

I guess the fact that we are not at war with Yemen, either declared or undeclared is missing from you awareness.

Have fun with your strawman. Let us know when you want to get back on subject

 

[Dune]

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.


>>>>

Sorry, but if Awlaki had been proven a member of AlQuaida in a trial, through the use of evidence, then your argument could work.
Rather he was executed on the basis of hearsay evidence alone.

 

[Dune]

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

I guess the fact that we are not at war with Yemen, either declared or undeclared is missing from you awareness.

Have fun with your strawman. Let us know when you want to get back on subject

Have fun with your future in which your government can legaly execute you by simply declaring you an enemy combatant, without providing any proof whatsoever to anyone.

When you are ready to act like an american, let me know.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.







.

Actually the semi-colon at the end of the first clause sets conditions applicable to all following clauses each subsequent clause is set under the conditions joined to the first clause.

During time of war the military is not subject to the same conditions for Due Process as civilian courts. It would not be practical on the battlefield to:

(a) Detain each combatant without use of deadly force,
(b) Determine the status of each combatant,
(c) If the combatant is found to be a citizen, then continue detainment,
(d) Proceed with investigation,
(e) Convene a Grand Jury,
(f) Pending results of Grand Jury, then issue an arrest warrant,
(g) Try the person in court,
(h) Execute if found convicted of a Capital Offense (which treason is).​

The difference is that in a tactical situation you have to react within a specified time window or an opportunity is lost.


This war will not be won with typical courtroom proceedings, this war will be won by cutting the head off the snake and when a new one starts to grow you cut that off next, and you keep going until there is nothing left but the tail that will wither and die.


>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

Dude, he was killed with the enemy. He fucking deserved WORSE imho. Due process for an enemy combattant? Are you stoned? Did we bother with Due Process for those German Americans who took up arms for 'The Fatherland' in WW2 and fought us? No. Please tell me that you're joking when you said this. We usually agree on so many things.

We're talking someone who wasn't even as good as Benedict Arnold who was a true American HERO before he joined the British to betray us. He wasn't sneaky like Alger Hiss or the Rosenthals. He took up arms, plotted and planned to kill his fellow citizens for a foreign power for religion.

Better still for this traitorous fuck would have been wounded on the battlefield, captured and stuck in the gallows to shit himself a month hence as he starved to death at the busiest overpass of Washington DC for everyone to see with a sign beneath him that said "This is what happens to barbarous traitors to the United States", while school buses full of kids forced to look drove by.,

Maybe... just MAYBE that'd drive the point home that turning on your nation might not be a wise thing. You may be free to talk a big game about hating this nation, but don't you fucking DARE do it! And you're absolutely right that's revolting and disgusting, but it seems these morons aren't getting the point playing nicey nicey.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I guess the fact that we are not at war with Yemen, either declared or undeclared is missing from you awareness.

Have fun with your strawman. Let us know when you want to get back on subject

Have fun with your future in which your government can legaly execute you by simply declaring you an enemy combatant, without providing any proof whatsoever to anyone.

When you are ready to act like an american, let me know.

Doubling down on the strawmen, huh?

Let us know how that works out for you

 

[Dune]

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?

Dude, he was killed with the enemy. He fucking deserved WORSE imho. We're talking someone who wasn't even as good as Benedict Arnold who was a true American HERO before he joined the British to betray us. He wasn't sneaky like Alger Hiss or the Rosenthals. He took up arms, plotted and planned to kill his fellow citizens for a foreign power for religion.

Better still would have been wounded on the battlefield, captured and stuck in the gallows to shit himself a month hence as he starved to death at the busiest overpass of Washington DC for everyone to see with a sign beneath him that said "This is what happens to barbarous traitors to the United States." while school buses full of kids forced to look drove by.,

Maybe... just MAYBE that'd drive the point home that turning on your nation might not be a wise thing. You may be free to talk a big game about hating this nation, but don't you fucking DARE do it!

Dude, he was killed with another american.

 

[Dune]

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.







.

Actually the semi-colon at the end of the first clause sets conditions applicable to all following clauses each subsequent clause is set under the conditions joined to the first clause.

During time of war the military is not subject to the same conditions for Due Process as civilian courts. It would not be practical on the battlefield to:

(a) Detain each combatant without use of deadly force,
(b) Determine the status of each combatant,
(c) If the combatant is found to be a citizen, then continue detainment,
(d) Proceed with investigation,
(e) Convene a Grand Jury,
(f) Pending results of Grand Jury, then issue an arrest warrant,
(g) Try the person in court,
(h) Execute if found convicted of a Capital Offense (which treason is).​

The difference is that in a tactical situation you have to react within a specified time window or an opportunity is lost.


This war will not be won with typical courtroom proceedings, this war will be won by cutting the head off the snake and when a new one starts to grow you cut that off next, and you keep going until there is nothing left but the tail that will wither and die.


>>>>

Prove that we are in a war.
Show the legal status for this war.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


>>>>

Sorry, but if Awlaki had been proven a member of AlQuaida in a trial, through the use of evidence, then your argument could work.
Rather he was executed on the basis of hearsay evidence alone.

"Hearsay evidence" is what evaluated in a courtroom proceeding. The military does not operate the battlefield as a court proceeding when dealing with tactical situations.

What is confusing so some people is the inability to adapt to the changed war environment. In the past "wars" have been fought against defined nation states. Al Qaeda is not a nation state but is a terrorist organization that declared war on us.

BTW - Check the internet, you can find his videos on line.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.







.

Actually the semi-colon at the end of the first clause sets conditions applicable to all following clauses each subsequent clause is set under the conditions joined to the first clause.

During time of war the military is not subject to the same conditions for Due Process as civilian courts. It would not be practical on the battlefield to:

(a) Detain each combatant without use of deadly force,
(b) Determine the status of each combatant,
(c) If the combatant is found to be a citizen, then continue detainment,
(d) Proceed with investigation,
(e) Convene a Grand Jury,
(f) Pending results of Grand Jury, then issue an arrest warrant,
(g) Try the person in court,
(h) Execute if found convicted of a Capital Offense (which treason is).​

The difference is that in a tactical situation you have to react within a specified time window or an opportunity is lost.


This war will not be won with typical courtroom proceedings, this war will be won by cutting the head off the snake and when a new one starts to grow you cut that off next, and you keep going until there is nothing left but the tail that will wither and die.


>>>>

Prove that we are in a war.
Show the legal status for this war.

Already have.

When the Japanese attacked Peal Harbor and declared war on the US, are you saying we were not at war even though Congress hadn't acted yet.

When someone declares war on you, you are at war.



>>>>

 

[Xchel]

The military does not operate the battlefield as a court proceeding when dealing with tactical situations.

There is no battlefield in Yemen, we are not at war with Yemen.

 

[Amelia]

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.


>>>>

The clause you are referring to says that it is our military who do not always get due process.


It does not give our military the right to target our citizens.


Our citizens who are not in the military still have due process.





Now why people think that our Constitution protects KSM who is not even a citizen ... that is a subject for another day.

But Awlaki was a citizen, and not in our armed forces, so he was entitled to due process before he was put on our death list.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The military does not operate the battlefield as a court proceeding when dealing with tactical situations.

There is no battlefield in Yemen, we are not at war with Yemen.

Never said we were at war with Yemen, we are at war with Al Qaeda and al Awlaki is (well was) a senior leader of that organization that was/is responsbile for the deaths of thousands of Americans.


>>>>

 

[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.







.

Actually the semi-colon at the end of the first clause sets conditions applicable to all following clauses each subsequent clause is set under the conditions joined to the first clause.

No.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


>>>>

The clause you are referring to says that it is our military who do not always get due process.


It does not give our military the right to target our citizens.


Our citizens who are not in the military still have due process.





Now why people think that our Constitution protects KSM who is not even a citizen ... that is a subject for another day.

But Awlaki was a citizen, and not in our armed forces, so he was entitled to due process before he was put on our death list.

Not when acting as an enemy combatant.


>>>>

 

[Xchel]

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.


>>>>

The clause you are referring to says that it is our military who do not always get due process.


It does not give our military the right to target our citizens.


Our citizens who are not in the military still have due process.





Now why people think that our Constitution protects KSM who is not even a citizen ... that is a subject for another day.

But Awlaki was a citizen, and not in our armed forces, so he was entitled to due process before he was put on our death list.

Not when acting as an enemy combatant.


>>>>

according to the US Supreme Court enemy combatants have the right to trial.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.







.

Actually the semi-colon at the end of the first clause sets conditions applicable to all following clauses each subsequent clause is set under the conditions joined to the first clause.

No.

Yes.





>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

So we throw due process out the window?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The clause you are referring to says that it is our military who do not always get due process.


It does not give our military the right to target our citizens.


Our citizens who are not in the military still have due process.





Now why people think that our Constitution protects KSM who is not even a citizen ... that is a subject for another day.

But Awlaki was a citizen, and not in our armed forces, so he was entitled to due process before he was put on our death list.

Not when acting as an enemy combatant.


>>>>

according to the US Supreme Court enemy combatants have the right to trial.

That may apply if they are captured...

.................................................. But not if they are killed on the battlefield. No sense in holding a trial if they are dead.



>>>>