Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, and the case you cite, and others that have been cited elsewhere, all have to do with the legal process ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN DETAINED.

you need to reread those case. The justices at a 6 -3 that an American citizen still has constitutional; rights and due process even though they were deemed enemy combatants.

Yawn, IF Awlaki had ever actually been detained, he would have retained those same rights...

Makes no difference if they'er held or not your constitutional rights are not striped away just because the president deems youan enemy combant. obama won't always be the fuhr one day someone like me will be incharge and we will see how you constitution haters will like your rights taken away just because we view you as enemy combatants.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, and the case you cite, and others that have been cited elsewhere, all have to do with the legal process ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN DETAINED.

A Maverick Missile does tend to solve a lot of legal conundrums.




>>>>

>>>>

 

[Valerie]

Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.

Indeed he was... And....................???

Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
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.



Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike. If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?

I haven't tried to equivocate anything. Those are your own words.

 

[Fedupp]

I couldn't care less where they killed the son-of-a-bitch! or where he came from or what country! Hes a traitor and a terrorist! And a coward! He used our rights and constitution and then wants to bitch about the very country that educated him out of the Freaking cave he was born in!!!! God speed you SOB!!!!

 

[Amelia]

And maybe this Christmas when you fly out to see relatives you will arrive safely instead of having your plane exploded in mid-air or highjacked and flown into skyscraper.

See I can make silly "what ifs" also.


Your appeal to emotion characterizations are just that, trying to jerk a tear in support of a terrorist scum bag because it's the fun "anti-government" of the day.


The fact remains that Congress authorized the use of force in protecting this country and Obama (as much as I dislike the current President) exercised that Constitutional authorized force through military action in a foreign land.


>>>>

You're full of shit and you know it. for the last 10 years the government has called terrorist acts a crime.

Tyranny no matter what it's used for is still tyranny. Why are you so eager for obama to start taking the action of a dictator? Do you have some status with the government? Have you been promised some kind authority in a puppet status?
HAMDI v. RUMSFELD
Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?




Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
and


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And if over the years Al-Awlaki had (a) returned to the United States or (b) peacefully presented himself at a United States Embassy for detention and arrest he would have been returned to the States and been able to avail himself to judicial due process.

He didn't he decided to stay hidden in a country without the possibility of arrest and extradition and to continue in his leadership position of an organization responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans.

He had an opportunity for Judicial Due Process and declined it.



>>>>

A) Why would he turn himself over? Was there a warrant for his arrest? He should just walk to the embassy and say, "Hey, I hear some of you are mad at me and might one day want to charge me with something, so here I am ... is there anything you want to charge me with?"

B) Even if there was a warrant, him not turning himself over does not mean we get to skip ahead to a death sentence just because he didn't turn himself over.

 

[Big Fitz]

Indeed he was... And....................???

Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
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.



Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike. If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?

I haven't tried to equivocate anything. Those are your own words.

Then what point are you attempting to make? Hmmmm?

 

[Valerie]

Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike. If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?

I haven't tried to equivocate anything. Those are your own words.

Then what point are you attempting to make? Hmmmm?

That your use of that Ben Franklin quote appears quite trite in the context of this discussion and especially in contrast with your other previous comments...

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're full of shit and you know it. for the last 10 years the government has called terrorist acts a crime.

Tyranny no matter what it's used for is still tyranny. Why are you so eager for obama to start taking the action of a dictator? Do you have some status with the government? Have you been promised some kind authority in a puppet status?
HAMDI v. RUMSFELD
Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?




Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
and


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And if over the years Al-Awlaki had (a) returned to the United States or (b) peacefully presented himself at a United States Embassy for detention and arrest he would have been returned to the States and been able to avail himself to judicial due process.

He didn't he decided to stay hidden in a country without the possibility of arrest and extradition and to continue in his leadership position of an organization responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans.

He had an opportunity for Judicial Due Process and declined it.



>>>>

A) Why would he turn himself over? Was there a warrant for his arrest? He should just walk to the embassy and say, "Hey, I hear some of you are mad at me and might one day want to charge me with something, so here I am ... is there anything you want to charge me with?"

If I was a terrorist that in a leadership position slaughtering thousands of American Citizens, I wouldn't turn myself in either.

B) Even if there was a warrant, him not turning himself over does not mean we get to skip ahead to a death sentence just because he didn't turn himself over.

As an enemy combatant leading an organization where Congress specifically authorized the use of military force to prevent future acts of terrorist, ya we can skip ahead to prosecute terminal actions against individuals in a position of authority hiding in a foreign country - yep we can skip ahead to death to combat operations.


>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.

Indeed he was... And....................???

Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
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.



Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike. If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?

I didn't use a corrupted Ben Franklin quote, Dune did and you used a parrot picture to respond. I pointed out he was a very astute man. I don't get your response OR to then quote me back and whistle about it. Obviously I'm not comprehending the context of your conversation with.... whom?

The full quote is actually:

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both

Neither is the issue here.

 

[Amelia]

There's every difference in the world. And if it ever happened all hell would break loose.

Try to quit being such an idiot.

I have an idea.

Instead of just calling me an idiot, why don't you prove I am an idiot by pointing out a few of the differences?

The difference is the due process of war.




A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News

Justice department memos are often attempts to tell the president what he wants to hear.

A justice memo said waterboarding was okay too.

 

[Valerie]

Indeed he was... And....................???

Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike. If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?

I didn't use a corrupted Ben Franklin quote, Dune did and you used a parrot picture to respond. I pointed out he was a very astute man. I don't get your response OR to then quote me back and whistle about it. Obviously I'm not comprehending the context of your conversation with.... whom?

The full quote is actually:

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both

Neither is the issue here.

Your posting an affirmative response to the quote is in essence using the quote. I realize it was Dune who I was poking fun at for parroting that trite quote in this context.


The confusing part is your need to point out that Ben Franklin was a wise man at that point...? Anyway, looks like we agree, so just a misunderstanding I guess...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.

Indeed he was... And....................???

Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
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.



Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike. If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

Salvadoran gangs akin to terrorists, FBI agent says

Salvadoran gangs akin to terrorists, FBI agent says - latimes.com

"We have domestic terrorists right here," said California Attorney General Jerry Brown at a recent gang summit in L.A. County. "Gangs are like a disease, like a cancer in a community. We have to do more."
for Christians & Messianic Jews - Black, Hispanic gangs kill each other over turf

In the Los Angeles area, similar legislation has already been approved, and plans are in place for police to issue an “eviction notice” to gangs who have already been labeled “domestic terrorists” by Southern California law enforcement officials, Final Call West Coast correspondent Charlene Muhammad reported. Western Regional Minister Tony Muhammad warned visitors at Muhammad’s Mosque No. 27 recently that Operation Nutcracker is not “to come, but has come” through federal legislation, without ample prior warning from any Blacks in Congress.
Deadly silence covers passing of federal gang bill

Watch this first
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0SyrgAQM7g]KEVIN JAMES - CONVICTED LA TERRORIST TALKS - YouTube[/ame]

This the completion of the first video
KEVIN JAMES - AN AMERICAN TERRORIST - YouTube

 

[Amelia]

Power corrupts.

It corrupted Obama. He is so far away from the person he campaigned as, from the person he was or pretended to be while in the Senate.

Obama would have screamed bloody murder if Bush had put an American citizen on a death list without dotting the constitutional i's and crossing the constitutional t's.




In the Senate, I thought he had strong potential as a future president, once he earned his stripes. He seemed to feel the same way as I did and for awhile said he wouldn't run when people asked him about 2008. But he let people recruit him and make him believe that he could and should be president sooner rather than later. Obviously they were correct that he could. Just as obviously they were incorrect that he should. His standards were made of tissue paper. Too much power too fast? Or his standards were all illusion to begin with? I don't know why he was so easy to corrupt but he was.


Senator Obama would have said that President Obama violated Awlaki's due process.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Power corrupts.

It corrupted Obama. He is so far away from the person he campaigned as, from the person he was or pretended to be while in the Senate.

Obama would have screamed bloody murder if Bush had put an American citizen on a death list without dotting the constitutional i's and crossing the constitutional t's.




In the Senate, I thought he had strong potential as a future president, once he earned his stripes. He seemed to feel the same way as I did and for awhile said he wouldn't run when people asked him about 2008. But he let people recruit him and make him believe that he could and should be president sooner rather than later. Obviously they were correct that he could. Just as obviously they were incorrect that he should. His standards were made of tissue paper. Too much power too fast? Or his standards were all illusion to begin with? I don't know why he was so easy to corrupt but he was.


Senator Obama would have said that President Obama violated Awlaki's due process.

obama has never changed he's still the same old lying sack of shit he's always been.

 

[Ravi]

You two are very amusing.

Bush authorized killing terrorists many times and I don't recall anyone questioning it once, let alone Obama.

I'm so sorry to see that this dead terrorist will keep you from voting for Obama.

 

[Amelia]

Power corrupts.

It corrupted Obama. He is so far away from the person he campaigned as, from the person he was or pretended to be while in the Senate.

Obama would have screamed bloody murder if Bush had put an American citizen on a death list without dotting the constitutional i's and crossing the constitutional t's.




In the Senate, I thought he had strong potential as a future president, once he earned his stripes. He seemed to feel the same way as I did and for awhile said he wouldn't run when people asked him about 2008. But he let people recruit him and make him believe that he could and should be president sooner rather than later. Obviously they were correct that he could. Just as obviously they were incorrect that he should. His standards were made of tissue paper. Too much power too fast? Or his standards were all illusion to begin with? I don't know why he was so easy to corrupt but he was.


Senator Obama would have said that President Obama violated Awlaki's due process.

obama has never changed he's still the same old lying sack of shit he's always been.

Sometimes he seems to have high ideals. He seems to believe them. I think he fools himself.

Like the time when he said that it would be wrong to vote against Bush's Supreme Court nominations for ideological reasons and agreed that John Roberts was brilliant and qualified. That was a brave thing for a Democrat to say and I think he said it because he believed it. I think he was really planning to vote yes for John Roberts. But then someone whispered in his ear and told him he might be hurting his chances for higher office and so he voted no.

I think he believes his promises when he makes them ... but time was needed for America to how likely he was to compromise his ideals. Now time has shown us he is not so good at that. Too late.

Still I think he really believes in his principles ... in theory ... when he's sitting in that comfy chair being interviewed by someone who is friendly to him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You two are very amusing.

Bush authorized killing terrorists many times and I don't recall anyone questioning it once, let alone Obama.

I'm so sorry to see that this dead terrorist will keep you from voting for Obama.

Yes Bush authorized killing terrorist but not assinating American citizens. You would be shitting bricks and biting harden steel nails in half if Bush would have given the ok to assinate Americans.

What I will lose sleep most of all is how obama assinated the Constitution and you stood by and watched.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Power corrupts.

It corrupted Obama. He is so far away from the person he campaigned as, from the person he was or pretended to be while in the Senate.

Obama would have screamed bloody murder if Bush had put an American citizen on a death list without dotting the constitutional i's and crossing the constitutional t's.




In the Senate, I thought he had strong potential as a future president, once he earned his stripes. He seemed to feel the same way as I did and for awhile said he wouldn't run when people asked him about 2008. But he let people recruit him and make him believe that he could and should be president sooner rather than later. Obviously they were correct that he could. Just as obviously they were incorrect that he should. His standards were made of tissue paper. Too much power too fast? Or his standards were all illusion to begin with? I don't know why he was so easy to corrupt but he was.


Senator Obama would have said that President Obama violated Awlaki's due process.

obama has never changed he's still the same old lying sack of shit he's always been.

Sometimes he seems to have high ideals. He seems to believe them. I think he fools himself.

Like the time when he said that it would be wrong to vote against Bush's Supreme Court nominations for ideological reasons and agreed that John Roberts was brilliant and qualified. That was a brave thing for a Democrat to say and I think he said it because he believed it. I think he was really planning to vote yes for John Roberts. But then someone whispered in his ear and told him he might be hurting his chances for higher office and so he voted no.

I think he believes his promises when he makes them ... but time was needed for America to how likely he was to compromise his ideals. Now time has shown us he is not so good at that. Too late.

Still I think he really believes in his principles ... in theory ... when he's sitting in that comfy chair being interviewed by someone who is friendly to him.

obama's actions are not based on belief it's based on political motivation.

 

[Valerie]

The judge went further in explaining why the challenge to the "targeted killing" program had to go away long before trial. Because it touched upon expert military judgments, he concluded, it was necessarily a "political question" that he was bound to allow the executive branch to answer first.

Through his lawsuit, Al-Aulaqi's father had asked the federal courts "to limit the circumstances under which the United States may employ lethal force against an individual abroad whom the Executive has determined 'plays an operational role in AQAP planning terrorist attacks against the United States.' "


This Judge Bates would not do. Why?


Because, he explained, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

 

[Ravi]

Germany 1941

BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"