Another one bites the dust...

[CarmelHP]

Art imitates Rambone, or vice versa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6KctnOYCVo&feature=related

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You have the burden of proof to show how he was NOT a citizen. He was not formally stripped of it, and he did not renounce it according to the best definition I can find (but am open to correction if one exists).

I have no such burden. He could have avoided his fate by surrendering to the nearest American Embassy. Instead he chose war. He lost.

 

[techres]

Precedent.

Both sides see this as one.

My question is this: If you have someone believed to be involved in a conspiracy to do bad, physical bad, against Americans can we then eliminate them for being at "war" against America?

The question I see is this:

One case makes a precedent but gives no range. All we now have is that the President can kill an American who has not been found guilty in a court of law.

The question is how slippery is this slope since it is no longer an absolute.

Can the same be done inside the US or only outside?
Can it be done in a case of believed involvement or only with overwhelming evidence?
Who reviews that evidence?

We have unalienable rights that are not removable based on elected officials and we should not grant them that exception. I get that he is a bad dude and do not weep for his demise, but like the number of drones and drone strikes increasingly employed in our war on terror, I fully expect more of these and if the definitions are not clear then the only thing that is clear is we have given up our own protections in order to get someone else.

It concerns me. Greatly.

I fear every increase in the executive branch is one that will bite us later and take generations to undo.

 

[Thomas Carey]

I did not think Obama had it in him. For once I agree with him.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Can it be done in a case of believed involvement or only with overwhelming evidence?
Who reviews that evidence?

Far as i know, i havent heard of ANY overwhelming evidence this guy was involved in any of the attacks, or attempts. They "suspect" him of being involved is what i've heard. Please correct me if im wrong

 

[CarmelHP]

Precedent.

Both sides see this as one.

My question is this: If you have someone believed to be involved in a conspiracy to do bad, physical bad, against Americans can we then eliminate them for being at "war" against America?

It depends. As the judge said in the case I cited, if he turned himself in peacefully to U.S. forces, he's entitled to protection. If he even appeared in court by video conference he could contest the targeting. Instead, he avowed he would never turn himself in or be captured and continued to advocate war upon the United States and urge killings of Americans wherever they are found. To see this as a hard case is sheer idiocy of the highest order.

You mean like when they themselves declare themselves at war with America and declare themselves in league with enemies of the United States. This is not a hard case. In World War 2 we didn't check everyone's passport before we plugged them. Many alleged criminals refuse to make themselves available for arrest, charging and trial, and die for it.

The question I see is this:

One case makes a precedent but gives no range. All we now have is that the President can kill an American who has not been found guilty in a court of law.

The question is how slippery is this slope since it is no longer an absolute.

Can the same be done inside the US or only outside?
Can it be done in a case of believed involvement or only with overwhelming evidence?
Who reviews that evidence?

I gave a case but everyone is so concerned about the issue that they didn't actually bother to read where that question is considered and answered pretty extensively.

We have unalienable rights that are not removable based on elected officials and we should not grant them that exception. I get that he is a bad dude and do not weep for his demise, but like the number of drones and drone strikes increasingly employed in our war on terror, I fully expect more of these and if the definitions are not clear then the only thing that is clear is we have given up our own protections in order to get someone else.

It concerns me. Greatly.

I fear every increase in the executive branch is one that will bite us later and take generations to undo.

He has no rights not to be killed as an enemy combatant. There has never been even the tiniest notion before in history that citizenship or non-citizenship made even the least bit of difference in killing enemies on foreign soil. Even on U.S. soil, if he resisted lawful arrest, deadly force could be used. Where in U.S. or international law is any support for the ridiculous assertion that you can not kill an avowed enemy supporting enemy operations on foreign soil? It's absurd, ridiculous and never before known in warfare.

 

[techres]

HP, I am tired and will read the review article carefully tomorrow.

Right now what I see is the following:

1. Dude across the street makes threats against others.
2. Dude keeps really bad friends.
3. Dude tells people to do really bad things on internet.
4. Dude tells cops if they come for him he will kill them.
5. Dude takes picture of rifles and explosives that he says he will kill arriving cops with.

So, we are clear cops have to deal with dude and that he is bad, right? No question at all, right?

Do the police get to just drop a bomb on his house, hose it with 50 cal, or do they have to go in and get him? Do they need a warrant to do it? Or is it cool if the police chief keeps a list of bad guys we can just do that to if we are lucky enough to find them?

That is the part I cannot get beyond.

An American killed resisting arrest is different than an American being on list of Americans to be killed by remote on the say of the President.

Frankly, it is the fact that there is a list of Americans who are to simply be killed by drones on the Executive branch's say so.

Guess it is just another new perk for the Presidential office.

 

[rambone]

Fort Hood. Remember that?

So do you consider Fort Hood, and other mass shootings as "acts of war"?

Should we skip the Due Process when dealing with shooting suspects too? Or does that only apply to the guy who supposedly wrote emails to the mass shooter?

 

[bigg cheese]

He has no rights not to be killed as an enemy combatant. There has never been even the tiniest notion before in history that citizenship or non-citizenship made even the least bit of difference in killing enemies on foreign soil. Even on U.S. soil, if he resisted lawful arrest, deadly force could be used. Where in U.S. or international law is any support for the ridiculous assertion that you can not kill an avowed enemy supporting enemy operations on foreign soil? It's absurd, ridiculous and never before known in warfare.

previous notion or no, citizenship does make a constitutional difference, and the ACLU will hopefully argue it that way. That said, merely resisting arrest is not grounds for deadly force. Any lawyer could tell you that. How many lawsuits have occurred because of over-zealous officers?

Wasn't he killed by a drone incognito, in which case, he wasn't engaged in combat, and no evidence thus far has shown him to be.

 

[CarmelHP]

p

revious notion or no, citizenship does make a constitutional difference, and the ACLU will hopefully argue it that way.

Why? Who said it does? Where?

That said, merely resisting arrest is not grounds for deadly force. Any lawyer could tell you that. How many lawsuits have occurred because of over-zealous officers?

Believed to be dangerous and sworn won't be taken alive, this lawyer will tell you that it's likely the first hint you get will be guns blazing, ask Bonnie and Clyde.

Wasn't he killed by a drone incognito, in which case, he wasn't engaged in combat, and no evidence thus far has shown him to be.

We dropped millions of pounds of bombs on Nazis sitting in their homes. Some were known to be American citizens of German descent. Should the B-17 drivers have checked passports first? This goes beyond ludicrous.

 

[rambone]

We dropped millions of pounds of bombs on Nazis sitting in their homes. Some were known to be American citizens of German descent. Should the B-17 drivers have checked passports first? This goes beyond ludicrous.

The ludicrous thing is spending money and dispensing the constitution as if we were in the middle of World War 2, fighting the highly organized Nazi war machine. Al Qaeda offers no comparison. Yemen wasn't a warzone, and there was no reason not to go in and capture this "mastermind". Maybe capturing him would have busted open some more of his secret CIA terror plots.

 

[CarmelHP]

The ludicrous thing is spending money and dispensing the constitution as if we were in the middle of World War 2, fighting the highly organized Nazi war machine. Al Qaeda offers no comparison. Yemen wasn't a warzone, and there was no reason not to go in and capture this "mastermind". Maybe capturing him would have busted open some more of his secret CIA terror plots.

No reason not to since someone else's butt would be on the line to get him. It's real easy for you to decide that someone else should have to put it all on the line rather than skedaddling at the first sign of trouble. I didn't know the level of "organization" conferred some Constitutional benefits on foreign based enemies.

 

[rambone]

I didn't know the level of "organization" conferred some Constitutional benefits on foreign based enemies.

Again, the constitutional benefits are for our sake, as well as the accused. The thing about devil & and all that.

 

[Smokepole]

He got the process that was due in his situation. He was not in custody, he was not on U.S. soil and he was acting as an agent of a foreign enemy. There was no other process due him.

ABSOLUTELY !!! He forfeited his rights to CIVILIAN due process the instant that he took arms against his country and her citizens and joined a known and exceedingly hostile enemy. And as such, to quote CarmelHP, he got the process he was due.

I have no sympathy for him or his ilk. I just with that he had CAUGHT a 500 pounder. A Snoopy catch preferably.

 

[Smokepole]

The ludicrous thing is spending money and dispensing the constitution as if we were in the middle of World War 2, fighting the highly organized Nazi war machine. Al Qaeda offers no comparison. Yemen wasn't a warzone, and there was no reason not to go in and capture this "mastermind". Maybe capturing him would have busted open some more of his secret CIA terror plots.

The "warzone" is wherever your enemy is and he conducts the business of war. Pure and simple.

 

[CarmelHP]

Again, the constitutional benefits are for our sake, as well as the accused. The thing about devil & and all that.

The Constitution is NOT some worldwide get out of jail free card. He was on foreign soil conducting enemy operations as determined by the Commander in Chief. He has not submitted to arrest or capture and is subject to attack the same as any other foreign enemy. End of story. If the devil was in France, Sir Thomas More would level everything to get him. You're misinterpreting that little vignette, sir.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Im guessing that the power the executive branch has grabbed over the last decade we will soon be having this discussion about an american citizen "alleged bad guy" killed on american soil.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wBR3v3x0uA&feature=feedu

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Again, the constitutional benefits are for our sake, as well as the accused. The thing about devil & and all that.

And again the Constitution doesn't protect enemey combatants engaged in war against the US.

Im guessing that the power the executive branch has grabbed over the last decade we will soon be having this discussion about an american citizen "alleged bad guy" killed on american soil.

Last decade? There have been killings for waging war against this country since before its founding. How exactly is that some power grab in the past decade?

"Alleged American bad guys" are killed every day on American soil. Some are by the police. Some are by citizens.

So if someone breaks into my house and rapes my wife and kills my kids I should subdue them and hold them for the police so they can have a fair trial?

 

[Expat]

Maybe if Ron Paul would have given these American born Muslim extremist terrorists a stern talking too, they would have skidaddled back to their moms' basements.