Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Dune]

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.



>>>>

One size fits all, and forever.

 

[Dune]

Congress can authorize war against another nation, not make hit lists to kill people that are US citizens from

Article I Section 8 specifically empowers Congress to authorize use of the military in cases of insurrection. Insurrection does not occur by "another nation", insurrection is revolting against your own government. Therefore the Constitution authorizes the user of military force against US citizens who are in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

"who are in a state of insurrection"

Nice try.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Rule of law Has Been Abolished - YouTube

This is what I got from the video
"because I said so now shut the fuck up"

 

[Dune]

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.



>>>>

If one part of the constitution is no good then non of the Constitution is no good, you can't have it both ways.

There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment. If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.

And the Superme Court already ruled hat even though an American citizen has been deemed a enemy combatant they still have due process of the law.

Of course if you are captured by law enforcement and are to be tried in court, then you have due process. However as an enemy combatant outside the bounds of law enforcement hiding in another country where they can't reach you, then Congress can authorize the use of military force.



Pretty simple really.


>>>>

You just said insurrection could only occur from inside the county.

Make up your mind.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Congress can authorize war against another nation, not make hit lists to kill people that are US citizens from

Article I Section 8 specifically empowers Congress to authorize use of the military in cases of insurrection. Insurrection does not occur by "another nation", insurrection is revolting against your own government. Therefore the Constitution authorizes the user of military force against US citizens who are in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

"who are in a state of insurrection"

Nice try.

The tea party

 

[Dune]

The guy was NOT assassinated ,he was killed on the battle field,as the enemy,it really is that simple.

No. you have it completely backwards.

Yemen is not a battlefield.

He was targeted by a drone.

He was clearly assassinated.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Congress can authorize war against another nation, not make hit lists to kill people that are US citizens from

Article I Section 8 specifically empowers Congress to authorize use of the military in cases of insurrection. Insurrection does not occur by "another nation", insurrection is revolting against your own government. Therefore the Constitution authorizes the user of military force against US citizens who are in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

"who are in a state of insurrection"

Nice try.

"Insurrectoin" an attempt to overthrow and established government, al Alwki calling for the destruction of the United States.

Yes, as a United States Citizen, that would be placing one's self in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

If one part of the constitution is no good then non of the Constitution is no good, you can't have it both ways.

There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment. If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.

And the Superme Court already ruled hat even though an American citizen has been deemed a enemy combatant they still have due process of the law.

Of course if you are captured by law enforcement and are to be tried in court, then you have due process. However as an enemy combatant outside the bounds of law enforcement hiding in another country where they can't reach you, then Congress can authorize the use of military force.



Pretty simple really.


>>>>

You just said insurrection could only occur from inside the county.

Make up your mind.

No I didn't try reading back through my posts again. Insurrection is a condition whereby a person is trying to abolish or overthrow their established government. That is not defined by geographical limitations. A United States citizen in Memphis, TN can be an insurrectionist if they are trying to overthrow the United States government, as well as a citizen of the United States in Yemen trying to overthrow the United States government.


Pretty easy, insurrection is based on the government you are a citizen of and the government you are revolting against, not your geographical location.


>>>>

 

[Jos]

With no Proof presented, only hearsay?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Article I Section 8 specifically empowers Congress to authorize use of the military in cases of insurrection. Insurrection does not occur by "another nation", insurrection is revolting against your own government. Therefore the Constitution authorizes the user of military force against US citizens who are in a state of insurrection.


>>>>

"who are in a state of insurrection"

Nice try.

The tea party

1. The Tea Party has not called for the overthrow of the government, the have called for fiscal responsibility from the current government and changes needed to be performed in a Constitutional manner.

2. To my knowledge the Tea Party hasn't flown airplanes into building slaughtering thousands of American Citizens.

3. To my knowledge the Tea Party has not encouraged an Army Major to walk into a group of fellow soldiers and slaughter them.

4. To my knowledge the Tea Party has never been instrumental in putting a bomb in someones underwear in an attempt to blow up an airplane with hundreds onboard.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

With no Proof presented, only hearsay?

"Proof" (as in evidence) and "hearsay" applies in a court of law, not to military strikes taken against enemy combatants.


>>>>

 

[Valerie]

With no Proof presented, only hearsay?

Presented to whom...?



Evidence was presented to a federal court, evidence was presented to congress, evidence was presented to the Department of Justice and it's team of legal experts, evidence was presented to the President of the United States who holds the executive authority to order the US Military to kill unlawful enemy combatants...






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.' "






Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"who are in a state of insurrection"

Nice try.

The tea party

1. The Tea Party has not called for the overthrow of the government, the have called for fiscal responsibility from the current government and changes needed to be performed in a Constitutional manner.

2. To my knowledge the Tea Party hasn't flown airplanes into building slaughtering thousands of American Citizens.

3. To my knowledge the Tea Party has not encouraged an Army Major to walk into a group of fellow soldiers and slaughter them.

4. To my knowledge the Tea Party has never been instrumental in putting a bomb in someones underwear in an attempt to blow up an airplane with hundreds onboard.


>>>>

Yet the tea party has been called terrorist comparing it to tim mcviegh.

1. The Tea Party has not called for the overthrow of the government, the have called for fiscal responsibility from the current government and changes needed to be performed in a Constitutional manner.

Who's called for the overthrow of the government?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

With no Proof presented, only hearsay?

Presented to whom...?



Evidence was presented to a federal court, evidence was presented to congress, evidence was presented to the Department of Justice and it's team of legal experts, evidence was presented to the President of the United States who holds the executive authority to order the US Military to kill unlawful enemy combatants...






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.' "






Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

BTW how do you like immagration sytem now? should we stop giving out citizenships to every tom dick and harry? Next thing you know we'll have mexicans doing this.

 

[Amelia]

With no Proof presented, only hearsay?

Presented to whom...?



Evidence was presented to a federal court, evidence was presented to congress, evidence was presented to the Department of Justice and it's team of legal experts, evidence was presented to the President of the United States who holds the executive authority to order the US Military to kill unlawful enemy combatants...






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.' "






Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

BTW how do you like immagration sytem now? should we stop giving out citizenships to every tom dick and harry? Next thing you know we'll have mexicans doing this.

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

 

[Valerie]

With no Proof presented, only hearsay?

Presented to whom...?



Evidence was presented to a federal court, evidence was presented to congress, evidence was presented to the Department of Justice and it's team of legal experts, evidence was presented to the President of the United States who holds the executive authority to order the US Military to kill unlawful enemy combatants...






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.' "






Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

That's right, keep ignoring the difference between criminal due process and the due process of war...

 

[geauxtohell]

Presented to whom...?



Evidence was presented to a federal court, evidence was presented to congress, evidence was presented to the Department of Justice and it's team of legal experts, evidence was presented to the President of the United States who holds the executive authority to order the US Military to kill unlawful enemy combatants...






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.' "






Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

BTW how do you like immagration sytem now? should we stop giving out citizenships to every tom dick and harry? Next thing you know we'll have mexicans doing this.

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

BTW how do you like immagration sytem now? should we stop giving out citizenships to every tom dick and harry? Next thing you know we'll have mexicans doing this.

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

Why should we charge anyone, if an accused child molestor is caught leaving the area of a crying child find the nearest tall tree grab a rope and hang the bastard.

 

[Valerie]

Presented to whom...?



Evidence was presented to a federal court, evidence was presented to congress, evidence was presented to the Department of Justice and it's team of legal experts, evidence was presented to the President of the United States who holds the executive authority to order the US Military to kill unlawful enemy combatants...






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.' "






Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

BTW how do you like immagration sytem now? should we stop giving out citizenships to every tom dick and harry? Next thing you know we'll have mexicans doing this.

That's more and more what it's sounding like. That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem. Just kill them outright.

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do. So make sure you kill 'em.

No, not just "someone" as if it could be "anyone" of us... Just unlawful enemy combatants with an expressed intent to kill Americans.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Presented to whom...?



Evidence was presented to a federal court, evidence was presented to congress, evidence was presented to the Department of Justice and it's team of legal experts, evidence was presented to the President of the United States who holds the executive authority to order the US Military to kill unlawful enemy combatants...






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.' "






Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News

And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

That's right, keep ignoring the difference between criminal due process and the due process of war...

What war?