Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Dune]

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!"

apples and oranges

 

[idb]

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.

And right there is the real nub of your argument.
It has nothing to do with the constitution at all, it's all about Obama.

 

[Dune]

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!"

buggereater Ravi you do realize that happen in nazi germany people were killed just because the government said so. thanks for supporting naizism, it's crazy to show your support but by all means do continue.

In this hypothetical you are the Nazi, silly!

No, in this situation, you are the mindless idiot.

 

[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.

And right there is the real nub of your argument.
It has nothing to do with the constitution at all, it's all about Obama.

It's both he's a lyiong sack of shit. I can say that ans also show obama has a disregard for the constitutional process.

 

[Dune]

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

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you are a proven traitor, the penalty is death.

Go away, troll!

By troll, I assume you mean one who bests you in a debate?
You are the only liberal to EVER call me a troll, idiot.

 

[Ravi]

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

And right there is the real nub of your argument.
It has nothing to do with the constitution at all, it's all about Obama.

It's both he's a lyiong sack of shit. I can say that ans also show obama has a disregard for the constitutional process.

As a Kenyan, he's not required to follow the constitution.

 

[idb]

The problem is that these terrorists don't play by any rules.
They certainly don't feel any constraint around peoples rights.
The West has been struggling to deal with this and if everything was done according to due process then I suspect there would have been zero progress in the fight against these bastards.

Because the battle isn't against a state that can be identified and faced, the only thing that could have been done was to retreat to within your own borders and wait for the bad men to come.

 

[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.

And right there is the real nub of your argument.
It has nothing to do with the constitution at all, it's all about Obama.

Right. That's why Rachel Maddow and the ACLU have been expressing their opposition to targeting an American for assassination since Awlaki was first put on that list in early 2010.

 

[Valerie]

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you are a proven traitor, the penalty is death.

Go away, troll!

By troll, I assume you mean one who bests you in a debate?
You are the only liberal to EVER call me a troll, idiot.

Now look who's got nothing!




I've never "debated" with you and I am not a "liberal", troll.

 

[Amelia]

The problem is that these terrorists don't play by any rules.
They certainly don't feel any constraint around peoples rights.
The West has been struggling to deal with this and if everything was done according to due process then I suspect there would have been zero progress in the fight against these bastards.

Because the battle isn't against a state that can be identified and faced, the only thing that could have been done was to retreat to within your own borders and wait for the bad men to come.

We're supposed to be better than the terrorists. One of the things which supposedly makes us better than them is our Constitution.

We had plenty of time to give Awlaki due process, and if at any time during that period he actually did pose an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country we could have taken him down without violating our principles.

 

[idb]

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

And right there is the real nub of your argument.
It has nothing to do with the constitution at all, it's all about Obama.

Right. That's why Rachel Maddow and the ACLU have been expressing their opposition to targeting an American for assassination since Awlaki was first put on that list in early 2010.

Does bigrednec speak for them both?
There are plenty of opinions for and against from both sides of the political debate...I was addressing bigrednec only.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

No, that is exactly what is going on here. A steady erosion of freedom for a temporary gain of security, resulting in the eventual loss of both.

So let the enemy kill us by misapplication and misunderstanding our own rules.

Until the Maccabees, the Jews wouldn't fight on the Sabbath. The enemies would then choose those days to attack, and win the day, but the next often was the bad news for them. Finally, they realized that defending oneself is not a sin, and dealt with their attackers on the Sabbath when they came.

Too Jewish a reference?

Here. Try Hollywood.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The problem is that these terrorists don't play by any rules.
They certainly don't feel any constraint around peoples rights.
The West has been struggling to deal with this and if everything was done according to due process then I suspect there would have been zero progress in the fight against these bastards.

Because the battle isn't against a state that can be identified and faced, the only thing that could have been done was to retreat to within your own borders and wait for the bad men to come.

We're supposed to be better than the terrorists. One of the things which supposedly makes us better than them is our Constitution.

We had plenty of time to give Awlaki due process, and if at any time during that period he actually did pose an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country we could have taken him down without violating our principles.

Amelia,

So you are saying we have to wait for a terrorist to come to this country, as in 'an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country" before we can do something. So as long as someone stays overseas they can plan terrorist actions, recruit terrorists that they will then send to this country in their stead, they can teach people how to build bombs, they can provide funds, papers, resources, safe houses, etc. - and there is not going to be anything we can do?


The lives are uncountable that can be saved by being able to target a General then by waiting for a Private. Privates are canon fodder, Generals are the brains and the resource provider.



>>>>

 

[Amelia]

To me a very interesting question is, Why didn't the administration indict Awlaki?

They had plenty of time.

Were they more concerned by the precedent which would have been set if they indicted him than by the precedent set by not indicting him?

What was on their mind when they put him on a hit list and kept him there for almost two years without ever indicting him much less getting a conviction against him?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The problem is that these terrorists don't play by any rules.
They certainly don't feel any constraint around peoples rights.
The West has been struggling to deal with this and if everything was done according to due process then I suspect there would have been zero progress in the fight against these bastards.

Because the battle isn't against a state that can be identified and faced, the only thing that could have been done was to retreat to within your own borders and wait for the bad men to come.

We're supposed to be better than the terrorists. One of the things which supposedly makes us better than them is our Constitution.

We had plenty of time to give Awlaki due process, and if at any time during that period he actually did pose an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country we could have taken him down without violating our principles.

Amelia,

So you are saying we have to wait for a terrorist to come to this country, as in 'an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country" before we can do something. So as long as someone stays overseas they can plan terrorist actions, recruit terrorists that they will then send to this country in their stead, they can teach people how to build bombs, they can provide funds, papers, resources, safe houses, etc. - and there is not going to be anything we can do?


The lives are uncountable that can be saved by being able to target a General then by waiting for a Private. Privates are canon fodder, Generals are the brains and the resource provider.



>>>>

A non American terrorist does not have the U.S. Constitution An American terrorist does. Let's keep the two seperate.

 

[Care4all]

Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?

believe it or not, i have not really read too much on the particular case that this could be referencing, but your whole thread question has been nawing at me for a few days.

HERE is my general thoughts...

I don't believe in killing someone who has not killed/murdered...Just as I don't believe in President Bush's Preemptive War...not unless we, as a nation, is in imminent danger of being attacked...and attacked TODAY, not attacked sometime down the road, but in imminent danger of being harmed, if we did not kill this other person or kill this other nation's citizens.

And I might add, that even if we were in imminent danger, I still expect my government to do all that they can do to stop this from happening without killing this other person or without going to war against this other nation.

I expect my government to capture this person, this USA citizen, and NOT kill him/her....especially if there was nothing that this person was doing at the present moment, to harm us. If you are close enough to assasinate, then you are close enough to capture. Then this citizen should be tried.

So, if this American is in the act of harming us then I have no problem with killing him while in that act, because this could be considered "self defense" on the part of our government.

but if this American person, is not pulling the trigger, then he should be captured alive....he would mean more to us captured, than dead too, imho.

 

[Amelia]

The problem is that these terrorists don't play by any rules.
They certainly don't feel any constraint around peoples rights.
The West has been struggling to deal with this and if everything was done according to due process then I suspect there would have been zero progress in the fight against these bastards.

Because the battle isn't against a state that can be identified and faced, the only thing that could have been done was to retreat to within your own borders and wait for the bad men to come.

We're supposed to be better than the terrorists. One of the things which supposedly makes us better than them is our Constitution.

We had plenty of time to give Awlaki due process, and if at any time during that period he actually did pose an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country we could have taken him down without violating our principles.

Amelia,

So you are saying we have to wait for a terrorist to come to this country, as in 'an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country" before we can do something. So as long as someone stays overseas they can plan terrorist actions, recruit terrorists that they will then send to this country in their stead, they can teach people how to build bombs, they can provide funds, papers, resources, safe houses, etc. - and there is not going to be anything we can do?


The lives are uncountable that can be saved by being able to target a General then by waiting for a Private. Privates are canon fodder, Generals are the brains and the resource provider.



>>>>

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that they had plenty of time to indict him and get a conviction. And they should have sought it.

No more lives were saved by killing him last week without due process than would have been saved by killing him last week with due process.

There would have been nothing wrong with killing him in a normal military maneuver if events on the ground dictated it. But that could have been done without putting him specifically on a kill list.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?

believe it or not, i have not really read too much on the particular case that this could be referencing, but your whole thread question has been nawing at me for a few days.

HERE is my general thoughts...

I don't believe in killing someone who has not killed/murdered...Just as I don't believe in President Bush's Preemptive War...not unless we, as a nation, is in imminent danger of being attacked...and attacked TODAY, not attacked sometime down the road, but in imminent danger of being harmed, if we did not kill this other person or kill this other nation's citizens.

And I might add, that even if we were in imminent danger, I still expect my government to do all that they can do to stop this from happening without killing this other person or without going to war against this other nation.

I expect my government to capture this person, this USA citizen, and NOT kill him/her....especially if there was nothing that this person was doing at the present moment, to harm us. If you are close enough to assasinate, then you are close enough to capture. Then this citizen should be tried.

So, if this American is in the act of harming us then I have no problem with killing him while in that act, because this could be considered "self defense" on the part of our government.

but if this American person, is not pulling the trigger, then he should be captured alive....he would mean more to us captured, than dead too, imho.

I agree with you care

 

[WorldWatcher]

We're supposed to be better than the terrorists. One of the things which supposedly makes us better than them is our Constitution.

We had plenty of time to give Awlaki due process, and if at any time during that period he actually did pose an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country we could have taken him down without violating our principles.

Amelia,

So you are saying we have to wait for a terrorist to come to this country, as in 'an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country" before we can do something. So as long as someone stays overseas they can plan terrorist actions, recruit terrorists that they will then send to this country in their stead, they can teach people how to build bombs, they can provide funds, papers, resources, safe houses, etc. - and there is not going to be anything we can do?


The lives are uncountable that can be saved by being able to target a General then by waiting for a Private. Privates are canon fodder, Generals are the brains and the resource provider.



>>>>

A non American terrorist does not have the U.S. Constitution An American terrorist does. Let's keep the two seperate.

Not need to keep them separate when Constitutional requirements are met such an Congress authorizing the use of military force under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution which they did under their "Authorization for use of Military Force" issued on September 18, 2001 which authorized the President of the United States to act with "all necessary force" against terrorist organizations.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

We're supposed to be better than the terrorists. One of the things which supposedly makes us better than them is our Constitution.

We had plenty of time to give Awlaki due process, and if at any time during that period he actually did pose an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country we could have taken him down without violating our principles.

Amelia,

So you are saying we have to wait for a terrorist to come to this country, as in 'an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country" before we can do something. So as long as someone stays overseas they can plan terrorist actions, recruit terrorists that they will then send to this country in their stead, they can teach people how to build bombs, they can provide funds, papers, resources, safe houses, etc. - and there is not going to be anything we can do?


The lives are uncountable that can be saved by being able to target a General then by waiting for a Private. Privates are canon fodder, Generals are the brains and the resource provider.



>>>>

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that they had plenty of time to indict him and get a conviction. And they should have sought it.

No more lives were saved by killing him last week without due process than would have been saved by killing him last week with due process.

There would have been nothing wrong with killing him in a normal military maneuver if events on the ground dictated it. But that could have been done without putting him specifically on a kill list.

What you said was, and I quote "an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country".

There is no need for an indictment during times of war for enemy combatants, whether they be US Citizens or not when they are acting as the head (or operative) an an organization that has declared war on us.



>>>>