Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Liability]

Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:

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 offence 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.

As you MIGHT be able to discern from the focus of the words of the Amendment itself, the concern is with the right of PEOPLE (not just citizens, by the way) relative to CRIME and LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

To help frame the discussion just a LITTLE bit more, let me ask you: do you imagine that enemy soldiers on a foreign battlefield might have some hitherto unknown "right" to seek a prior ruling from an American Court of LAW? The famous "WRIT of HEY! DON'T SHOOT ME!"

 

[idb]

If obama wasn't wanting terrorist killed on sight he never would have a hit list or send in drones to do the job. gang members are terrorist they terrorize people. So they do not deserve any rights according to the action of obama

You can't have it both ways, but being you're not American citizen you would never understand what due process is.

Sooo...what you are saying in more words than you needed to use is "Actually, I have nothing".

No, that is what you are saying.

What he is saying is true and that is the whole point of this thread.

If it is O.K. for the president to order the death of an american, without due process in Yemen, than it is O.K. here as well. There is no difference.

Again, I agree with you principle.

On the other hand, taking it purely pragmatically, is it right that an American can effectively renounce his citizenship by indiscriminantly targetting his own countrymen and then be able to hide behind the constitution?

 

[percysunshine]

"There isn't anything wrong with a little shooting, as long as all the right people get shot."...Dirty Harry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Their kid is an American citizen no matter what he has done is still protected by the Constitution period.

How abouit those L.A. gang bangers should the police shoot them on sight because an informate gave the police intell of something they may have done? After all they are in the true sense terrorist and they kill people, and we still have that war on drugs thing going on.

If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the theater of battle, then of course they're fair game. It is a WAR over there. American due process is suspended in a war zone. I never thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb. So needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one.

OH no doesn't work that way. Those gang bangers are standing on the street minding thier own bussniess but an informat give the police some intell that they were involved in a murder or bank robbry. With what just happen it's gives the police presidence to kill without arresting.

No it is not precedence for police to arbitraily shoot a gang-banger because: (A) the police are not in the military, and (b) the police are not covered under the "Authorization to use Military Force" issued by the United States Congress under the War Powers Act.

The Congress on the other hand has authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who may be harboring or may attempt future such attacks.


Something consistent with both the War Powers Act and consistent with the suppression of insurrections (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8).


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the theater of battle, then of course they're fair game. It is a WAR over there. American due process is suspended in a war zone. I never thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb. So needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one.

OH no doesn't work that way. Those gang bangers are standing on the street minding thier own bussniess but an informat give the police some intell that they were involved in a murder or bank robbry. With what just happen it's gives the police presidence to kill without arresting.

No it is not precedence for police to arbitraily shoot a gang-banger because: (A) the police are not in the military, and (b) the police are not covered under the "Authorization to use Military Force" issued by the United States Congress under the War Powers Act.

The Congress on the other hand has authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who may be harboring or may attempt future such attacks.


Something consistent with both the War Powers Act and consistent with the suppression of insurrections (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8).


>>>>

gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.

 

[idb]

OH no doesn't work that way. Those gang bangers are standing on the street minding thier own bussniess but an informat give the police some intell that they were involved in a murder or bank robbry. With what just happen it's gives the police presidence to kill without arresting.

No it is not precedence for police to arbitraily shoot a gang-banger because: (A) the police are not in the military, and (b) the police are not covered under the "Authorization to use Military Force" issued by the United States Congress under the War Powers Act.

The Congress on the other hand has authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who may be harboring or may attempt future such attacks.


Something consistent with both the War Powers Act and consistent with the suppression of insurrections (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8).


>>>>

gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.

You only believe in due process when it suits you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sooo...what you are saying in more words than you needed to use is "Actually, I have nothing".

No, that is what you are saying.

What he is saying is true and that is the whole point of this thread.

If it is O.K. for the president to order the death of an american, without due process in Yemen, than it is O.K. here as well. There is no difference.

Again, I agree with you principle.

On the other hand, taking it purely pragmatically, is it right that an American can effectively renounce his citizenship by indiscriminantly targetting his own countrymen and then be able to hide behind the constitution?

Do you have a link to where he denounced his citizenship?

 

[idb]

No, that is what you are saying.

What he is saying is true and that is the whole point of this thread.

If it is O.K. for the president to order the death of an american, without due process in Yemen, than it is O.K. here as well. There is no difference.

Again, I agree with you principle.

On the other hand, taking it purely pragmatically, is it right that an American can effectively renounce his citizenship by indiscriminantly targetting his own countrymen and then be able to hide behind the constitution?

Do you have a link to where he denounced his citizenship?

I used a qualifier...can you spot it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No it is not precedence for police to arbitraily shoot a gang-banger because: (A) the police are not in the military, and (b) the police are not covered under the "Authorization to use Military Force" issued by the United States Congress under the War Powers Act.

The Congress on the other hand has authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who may be harboring or may attempt future such attacks.


Something consistent with both the War Powers Act and consistent with the suppression of insurrections (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8).


>>>>

gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.

You only believe in due process when it suits you.

And naturally a sheep hearder like you would be wrong. Being a non American and all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, I agree with you principle.

On the other hand, taking it purely pragmatically, is it right that an American can effectively renounce his citizenship by indiscriminantly targetting his own countrymen and then be able to hide behind the constitution?

Do you have a link to where he denounced his citizenship?

I used a qualifier...can you spot it?

Did he or did he not renounce his citizenship?

 

[idb]

gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.

You only believe in due process when it suits you.

And naturally a sheep hearder like you would be wrong. Being a non American and all.

No that's right, if I was an American I might be busy spending my day planning to blow up things full of other Americans.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:

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 offence 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.

As you MIGHT be able to discern from the focus of the words of the Amendment itself, the concern is with the right of PEOPLE (not just citizens, by the way) relative to CRIME and LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

To help frame the discussion just a LITTLE bit more, let me ask you: do you imagine that enemy soldiers on a foreign battlefield might have some hitherto unknown "right" to seek a prior ruling from an American Court of LAW? The famous "WRIT of HEY! DON'T SHOOT ME!"

Hell liability anyone can be classified anything, but that doesn't take away their American citizenship.

 

[idb]

Do you have a link to where he denounced his citizenship?

I used a qualifier...can you spot it?

Did he or did he not renounce his citizenship?

So you couldn't spot it?
It's right there.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OH no doesn't work that way. Those gang bangers are standing on the street minding thier own bussniess but an informat give the police some intell that they were involved in a murder or bank robbry. With what just happen it's gives the police presidence to kill without arresting.

No it is not precedence for police to arbitraily shoot a gang-banger because: (A) the police are not in the military, and (b) the police are not covered under the "Authorization to use Military Force" issued by the United States Congress under the War Powers Act.

The Congress on the other hand has authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who may be harboring or may attempt future such attacks.


Something consistent with both the War Powers Act and consistent with the suppression of insurrections (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8).


>>>>

gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.

Not my view***, it's the view of the United States Congress that authorized military action against terrorists.


*** Not that I disagree with killing terrorists hiding in a country where they cannot be arrested and extradited to the United States. If they are an American citizen and want due process I'm more then happy to give it to them, all you have to do turn yourself in at any United States Embassy. Something this enemy combatant had years of time to do.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You only believe in due process when it suits you.

And naturally a sheep hearder like you would be wrong. Being a non American and all.

No that's right, if I was an American I might be busy spending my day planning to blow up things full of other Americans.

You been watchen those hollywood gangbanger movies again I see.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No it is not precedence for police to arbitraily shoot a gang-banger because: (A) the police are not in the military, and (b) the police are not covered under the "Authorization to use Military Force" issued by the United States Congress under the War Powers Act.

The Congress on the other hand has authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who may be harboring or may attempt future such attacks.


Something consistent with both the War Powers Act and consistent with the suppression of insurrections (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8).


>>>>

gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.

Not my view***, it's the view of the United States Congress that authorized military action against terrorists.


*** Not that I disagree with killing terrorists hiding in a country where they cannot be arrested and extradited to the United States. If they are an American citizen and want due process I'm more then happy to give it to them, all you have to do turn yourself in at any United States Embassy. Something this enemy combatant had years of time to do.



>>>>

ONE MORE TIME
No president has the authority to supersede the Constitution by depriving an American citizen due process, like obama has done is a violation of constitution. No president has the authority to take out an American citizen. I really don't care what Congress did or does they have went over their constitutional authority.

 

[Valerie]

Having raised these poignant questions, having teased the litigants and the rest of us, Judge Bates then stoically failed to answer them. He kicked the case out on jurisdictional grounds -- the matter was a non-justiciable "political question" the courts had no business answering, he said -- much in the same way that lower federal court judges in 2002 and 2003 kicked around the Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi cases before the Supreme Court intervened.


Judge Bates' ruling was a step backwards from the feisty and fair judicial review in terror law cases that began in 2004. He focused more on what al-Awlaki hadn't done than on what the feds had done and were clearly planning to do.

He ruled that al-Awlaki (or his family) couldn't ask the federal courts for protection from a deadly drone strike unless he surrendered himself to authorities first. Judge Bates wrote:


The Court's conclusion that Anwar Al-Aulaqi can access the U.S. judicial system by presenting himself in a peaceful manner implies no judgment as to Anwar Al-Aulaqi's status as a potential terrorist. All U.S. citizens may avail themselves of the U.S. judicial system if they present themselves peacefully, and no U.S. citizen may simultaneously avail himself of the U.S. judicial system and evade U.S. law enforcement authorities. Anwar Al-Aulaqi is thus faced with the same choice presented to all U.S. citizens.


Where Is the Judicial Branch on Targeted Killings? - Andrew Cohen - National - The Atlantic

 

[Liability]

gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.

Not my view***, it's the view of the United States Congress that authorized military action against terrorists.


*** Not that I disagree with killing terrorists hiding in a country where they cannot be arrested and extradited to the United States. If they are an American citizen and want due process I'm more then happy to give it to them, all you have to do turn yourself in at any United States Embassy. Something this enemy combatant had years of time to do.



>>>>

ONE MORE TIME
No president has the authority to supersede the Constitution by depriving an American citizen due process, like obama has done is a violation of constitution. No president has the authority to take out an American citizen. I really don't care what Congress did or does they have went over their constitutional authority.

Sorry, but repeating your claim as though it was an established fact (which it isn't) doesn't convert your claim into anything substantial.

The President did not supersede the Constitution. He did not deprive al-Awlaki of "due process." There is no basis for you claim that the President lacks the Constitutional (and statutory) authority to order the killing of an enemy combatant in time of war regardless of his U.S. citizenship. And that you don't care what Congress did is probably one of the reasons you keep repeating your unproved contentions.

You cannot support your claim regarding what the Constitution commands on this topic except, apparently, by reiterating your belief again and again. And that fails to substantiate anything beyond the fact that you have a firm belief.

 

[Liability]

Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:

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 offence 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.

As you MIGHT be able to discern from the focus of the words of the Amendment itself, the concern is with the right of PEOPLE (not just citizens, by the way) relative to CRIME and LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

To help frame the discussion just a LITTLE bit more, let me ask you: do you imagine that enemy soldiers on a foreign battlefield might have some hitherto unknown "right" to seek a prior ruling from an American Court of LAW? The famous "WRIT of HEY! DON'T SHOOT ME!"

Hell liability anyone can be classified anything, but that doesn't take away their American citizenship.

You have yet to support YOUR contention that the fact of his American citizenship somehow differentiates al-Awlaki from any other enemy combatant in time of war.

Yes. By birth, he was technically an American citizen. But, no: that factoid provides no support for your contention that he was denied any Constitutional right under these circumstances.

 

[WorldWatcher]

gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.

Not my view***, it's the view of the United States Congress that authorized military action against terrorists.


*** Not that I disagree with killing terrorists hiding in a country where they cannot be arrested and extradited to the United States. If they are an American citizen and want due process I'm more then happy to give it to them, all you have to do turn yourself in at any United States Embassy. Something this enemy combatant had years of time to do.



>>>>

ONE MORE TIME
No president has the authority to supersede the Constitution by depriving an American citizen due process, like obama has done is a violation of constitution. No president has the authority to take out an American citizen. I really don't care what Congress did or does they have went over their constitutional authority.

ONE MORE TIME.

The Congress has the authority under Article I Section 8 of the United States constitution to authorize the use of the military to suppress insurrection and to deal with enemy combatants. Doesn't matter if they are citizens or foreign nationals. Insurrection by the way is the act of revolting against civil authority or an established government (which said scum bag has done in assisting with terrorist acts against the United States and in his own video tape released to the public).

During a time of war the Congress issues an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (which they did) authorizing the President to use "all necessary force" (which they did). Doesn't matter if the Operational Leader of an enemy organization is a Citizen or not, if you make War on the United States the United States will make war on you and you will loose.

Due Process applies to criminal actions handled under law enforcement, acts of war are covered under Constitutionally authorized War Powers Congress grants the President as Commander-in-Chief during time of war.


>>>>