Author Topic: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens  (Read 3291 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: US-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2011, 10:29:47 PM »

                ::rimshot::
    ::USA::                    ::USA::

           

Offline Janny

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
Re: US-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2011, 12:33:04 AM »
I'm done with arguing with people I like. All I know is screw him and and the bitch that bore him and the country they came from.He's dead and that's that and the people he helped murder at least now their families have some closure.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with you. He was at war with the US, and at the time of his death he was an enemy combatant and not subject to the civil rights of a US citizen. He did not need to be formally stripped of his citizenship by a court, as this ceased to be a civil matter and became a military matter when he renounced his own citizenship, by taking up arms against his country.  There is effectively no difference between him and bin Laden.

The slippery slope handwringing over this is ridiculous. He was a terrorist, plotting against the US, and he was part of a military exercise to remove the threat he posed.

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10341
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: US-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2011, 12:44:40 AM »
...The slippery slope handwringing over this is ridiculous...

We spend an awful lot of time and pixels here enumerating the myriad ways this government has released itself from its constitutional moorings, and how the federal government jeopardizes our liberty.

A recent poll (Gallup, if I remember correctly) suggests that only 17% of the American people believe this government has the consent of the governed, and that 49% of the people believe that the federal government poses an immediate threat to individual liberty.

When that same government takes it upon itself to send a drone strike against an American citizen - no matter how despicable - it is only natural in my mind to look at that slope and see the grease. With respect, I don't think it is ridiculous in the least.

I won't allow my loathing of Islam crowd out my alarm at the rapidity with which this government is claiming universal power.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 42036
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: US-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2011, 07:54:28 AM »
I will say this, I won't miss this miserable POS one bit.

But, there are troubling questions.  When this hit came down, did they know this POS was present?  Yes or no?  Who made the call?

I would have prefered a snatch & grab op in this assholes case and a swift treason trial and execution here.

Once you start intentionally whacking American citizens abroad, no matter how despicable they are, it will just get easier the next time around.  And where that leads nobody wants to go to.

But, getting to a point where we get reliable info out of this Regime about this or any other action, is going to prove problematic.

But without more info we don't really know went down.  But if the decision makers knew an American citizen was present, it is a slippy slope we may have just slid down.  And in my opinion, this is a slope way worse than water-boarding or anything GWB did to enemy combatants, that's for damn sure!

There's a good T-shirt for ya... "Obama kills American citizens, something even George W. Bush refused to do"!

Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline jpatrickham

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 943
  • "No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did;
Re: US-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2011, 09:08:43 AM »
Anwar al-Awlaki, right now, is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse. You know, just another enemy combant!  ::devil:: bait!

Wrong jpat, he was more than an enemy combatant.  He was a recruiter, tactician and strategist, field commander, and hierarchical leader of our declared and mortal enemy. He received a merciful death which is more than he deserved.  And "is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse".



All true but, as long as he is a stinking rotting corpse! ::thumbsup::

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: US-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2011, 11:04:07 AM »
Anwar al-Awlaki, right now, is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse. You know, just another enemy combant!  ::devil:: bait!

Wrong jpat, he was more than an enemy combatant.  He was a recruiter, tactician and strategist, field commander, and hierarchical leader of our declared and mortal enemy. He received a merciful death which is more than he deserved.  And "is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse".







All true but, as long as he is a stinking rotting corpse! ::thumbsup::

Yeah, I'd much rather debate what kind of POS he was than whether he should be.


Offline AmericanPatriot

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2011, 11:47:01 AM »
Ignore the source where this article was published
Some good food for discussion

http://www.infowars.com/the-day-america-died-the-only-future-for-americans-is-a-nightmare/

The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
(Assistant Secretary Of Treasury Under Reagan - "Creator Of Reaganomics")


Some of us have watched this day approach and have warned of its coming, only to be greeted with boos and hisses from “patriots” who have come to regard the US Constitution as a device that coddles criminals and terrorists and gets in the way of the President who needs to act to keep us safe.

In our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Lawrence Stratton and I showed that long before 9/11 US law had ceased to be a shield of the people and had been turned into a weapon in the hands of the government. The event known as 9/11 was used to raise the executive branch above the law. As long as the President sanctions an illegal act, executive branch employees are no longer accountable to the law that prohibits the illegal act. On the president’s authority, the executive branch can violate US laws against spying on Americans without warrants, indefinite detention, and torture and suffer no consequences.

Many expected President Obama to re-establish the accountability of government to law. Instead, he went further than Bush/Cheney and asserted the unconstitutional power not only to hold American citizens indefinitely in prison without bringing charges, but also to take their lives without convicting them in a court of law. Obama asserts that the US Constitution notwithstanding, he has the authority to assassinate US citizens, who he deems to be a “threat,” without due process of law.

In other words, any American citizen who is moved into the threat category has no rights and can be executed without trial or evidence.

On September 30 Obama used this asserted new power of the president and had two American citizens, Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan murdered. Khan was a wacky character associated with Inspire Magazine and does not readily come to mind as a serious threat.

Awlaki was a moderate American Muslim cleric who served as an advisor to the US government after 9/11 on ways to counter Muslim extremism. Awlaki was gradually radicalized by Washington’s use of lies to justify military attacks on Muslim countries. He became a critic of the US government and told Muslims that they did not have to passively accept American aggression and had the right to resist and to fight back. As a result Awlaki was demonized and became a threat.

All we know that Awlaki did was to give sermons critical of Washington’s indiscriminate assaults on Muslim peoples. Washington’s argument is that his sermons might have had an influence on some who are accused of attempting terrorist acts, thus making Awlaki responsible for the attempts.

Obama’s assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative.

But what Awlaki did or might have done is beside the point. The US Constitution requires that even the worst murderer cannot be punished until he is convicted in a court of law. When the American Civil Liberties Union challenged in federal court Obama’s assertion that he had the power to order assassinations of American citizens, the Obama Justice (sic) Department argued that Obama’s decision to have Americans murdered was an executive power beyond the reach of the judiciary.

In a decision that sealed America’s fate, federal district court judge John Bates ignored the Constitution’s requirement that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law and dismissed the case, saying that it was up to Congress to decide. Obama acted before an appeal could be heard, thus using Judge Bates’ acquiescence to establish the power and advance the transformation of the president into a Caesar that began under George W. Bush.

Attorneys Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley point out that Awlaki’s assassination terminated the Constitution’s restraint on the power of government. Now the US government not only can seize a US citizen and confine him in prison for the rest of his life without ever presenting evidence and obtaining a conviction, but also can have him shot down in the street or blown up by a drone.

Before some readers write to declare that Awlaki’s murder is no big deal because the US government has always had people murdered, keep in mind that CIA assassinations were of foreign opponents and were not publicly proclaimed events, much less a claim by the president to be above the law. Indeed, such assassinations were denied, not claimed as legitimate actions of the President of the United States.

The Ohio National Guardsmen who shot Kent State students as they protested the US invasion of Cambodia in 1970 made no claim to be carrying out an executive branch decision. Eight of the guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury. The guardsmen entered a self-defense plea. Most Americans were angry at war protestors and blamed the students. The judiciary got the message, and the criminal case was eventually dismissed. The civil case (wrongful death and injury) was settled for $675,000 and a statement of regret by the defendants . The point isn’t that the government killed people. The point is that never prior to President Obama has a President asserted the power to murder citizens.

Over the last 20 years, the United States has had its own Mein Kampf transformation. Terry Eastland’s book, Energy in the Executive: The Case for the Strong Presidency, presented ideas associated with the Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers that works to reduce legislative and judicial restraints on executive power. Under the cover of wartime emergencies (the war on terror), the Bush/Cheney regime employed these arguments to free the president from accountability to law and to liberate Americans from their civil liberties. War and national security provided the opening for the asserted new powers, and a mixture of fear and desire for revenge for 9/11 led Congress, the judiciary, and the people to go along with the dangerous precedents.

As civilian and military leaders have been telling us for years, the war on terror is a 30-year project. After such time has passed, the presidency will have completed its transformation into Caesarism, and there will be no going back.

Indeed, as the neoconservative “Project For A New American Century” makes clear, the war on terror is only an opening for the neoconservative imperial ambition to establish US hegemony over the world.

As wars of aggression or imperial ambition are war crimes under international law, such wars require doctrines that elevate the leader above the law and the Geneva Conventions, as Bush was elevated by his Justice (sic) Department with minimal judicial and legislative interference.

Illegal and unconstitutional actions also require a silencing of critics and punishment of those who reveal government crimes. Thus Bradley Manning has been held for a year, mainly in solitary confinement under abusive conditions, without any charges being presented against him. A federal grand jury is at work concocting spy charges against Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange. Another federal grand jury is at work concocting terrorists charges against antiwar activists.

“Terrorist” and “giving aid to terrorists” are increasingly elastic concepts. Homeland Security has declared that the vast federal police bureaucracy has shifted its focus from terrorists to “domestic extremists.”

It is possible that Awlaki was assassinated because he was an effective critic of the US government. Police states do not originate fully fledged. Initially, they justify their illegal acts by demonizing their targets and in this way create the precedents for unaccountable power. Once the government equates critics with giving “aid and comfort” to terrorists, as they are doing with antiwar activists and Assange, or with terrorism itself, as Obama did with Awlaki, it will only be a short step to bringing accusations against Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU.

The Obama Regime, like the Bush/Cheney Regime, is a regime that does not want to be constrained by law. And neither will its successor. Those fighting to uphold the rule of law, humanity’s greatest achievement, will find themselves lumped together with the regime’s opponents and be treated as such.

This great danger that hovers over America is unrecognized by the majority of the people. When Obama announced before a military gathering his success in assassinating an American citizen, cheers erupted. The Obama regime and the media played the event as a repeat of the (claimed) killing of Osama bin Laden. Two “enemies of the people” have been triumphantly dispatched. That the President of the United States was proudly proclaiming to a cheering audience sworn to defend the Constitution that he was a murderer and that he had also assassinated the US Constitution is extraordinary evidence that Americans are incapable of recognizing the threat to their liberty.

Emotionally, the people have accepted the new powers of the president. If the president can have American citizens assassinated, there is no big deal about torturing them. Amnesty International has sent out an alert that the US Senate is poised to pass legislation that would keep Guantanamo Prison open indefinitely and that Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) might introduce a provision that would legalize “enhanced interrogation techniques,” an euphemism for torture.

Instead of seeing the danger, most Americans will merely conclude that the government is getting tough on terrorists, and it will meet with their approval. Smiling with satisfaction over the demise of their enemies, Americans are being led down the garden path to rule by government unrestrained by law and armed with the weapons of the medieval dungeon.

Americans have overwhelming evidence from news reports and YouTube videos of US police brutally abusing women, children, and the elderly, of brutal treatment and murder of prisoners not only in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prisons abroad, but also in state and federal prisons in the US. Power over the defenseless attracts people of a brutal and evil disposition.

A brutal disposition now infects the US military. The leaked video of US soldiers delighting, as their words and actions reveal, in their murder from the air of civilians and news service camera men walking innocently along a city street shows soldiers and officers devoid of humanity and military discipline. Excited by the thrill of murder, our troops repeated their crime when a father with two small children stopped to give aid to the wounded and were machine-gunned.

So many instances: the rape of a young girl and murder of her entire family; innocent civilians murdered and AK-47s placed by their side as “evidence” of insurgency; the enjoyment experienced not only by high school dropouts from torturing they-knew-not- who in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, but also by educated CIA operatives and Ph.D. psychologists. And no one held accountable for these crimes except two lowly soldiers prominently featured in some of the torture photographs.

What do Americans think will be their fate now that the “war on terror” has destroyed the protection once afforded them by the US Constitution? If Awlaki really needed to be assassinated, why did not President Obama protect American citizens from the precedent that their deaths can be ordered without due process of law by first stripping Awlaki of his US citizenship? If the government can strip Awlaki of his life, it certainly can strip him of citizenship. The implication is hard to avoid that the executive branch desires the power to terminate citizens without due process of law.

Governments escape the accountability of law in stages. Washington understands that its justifications for its wars are contrived and indefensible. President Obama even went so far as to declare that the military assault that he authorized on Libya without consulting Congress was not a war, and, therefore, he could ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the power of the President to commit the US to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.

Americans are beginning to unwrap themselves from the flag. Some are beginning to grasp that initially they were led into Afghanistan for revenge for 9/11. From there they were led into Iraq for reasons that turned out to be false. They see more and more US military interventions: Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and now calls for invasion of Pakistan and continued saber rattling for attacks on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. The financial cost of a decade of the “war against terror” is starting to come home. Exploding annual federal budget deficits and national debt threaten Medicare and Social Security. Debt ceiling limits threaten government shut-downs.

War critics are beginning to have an audience. The government cannot begin its silencing of critics by bringing charges against US Representatives Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. It begins with antiwar protestors, who are elevated into “antiwar activists,” perhaps a step below “domestic extremists.” Washington begins with citizens who are demonized Muslim clerics radicalized by Washington’s wars on Muslims. In this way, Washington establishes the precedent that war protestors give encouragement and, thus, aid, to terrorists. It establishes the precedent that those Americans deemed a threat are not protected by law. This is the slippery slope on which we now find ourselves.

Last year the Obama Regime tested the prospects of its strategy when Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, announced that the government had a list of American citizens that it was going to assassinate abroad. This announcement, had it been made in earlier times by, for example, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, would have produced a national uproar and calls for impeachment. However, Blair’s announcement caused hardly a ripple. All that remained for the regime to do was to establish the policy by exercising it.

Readers ask me what they can do. Americans not only feel powerless, they are powerless. They cannot do anything. The highly concentrated, corporate-owned, government-subservient print and TV media are useless and no longer capable of performing the historic role of protecting our rights and holding government accountable. Even many antiwar Internet sites shield the government from 9/11 skepticism, and most defend the government’s “righteous intent” in its war on terror. Acceptable criticism has to be couched in words such as “it doesn’t serve our interests.”

Voting has no effect. President “Change” is worse than Bush/Cheney. As Jonathan Turley suggests, Obama is “the most disastrous president in our history.” Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who stands up for the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are too unconcerned with the Constitution to appreciate him.

To expect salvation from an election is delusional. All you can do, if you are young enough, is to leave the country.

The only future for Americans is a nightmare.

Offline Janny

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2011, 11:53:28 AM »
Quote
What do Americans think will be their fate now that the “war on terror” has destroyed the protection once afforded them by the US Constitution? If Awlaki really needed to be assassinated, why did not President Obama protect American citizens from the precedent that their deaths can be ordered without due process of law by first stripping Awlaki of his US citizenship? If the government can strip Awlaki of his life, it certainly can strip him of citizenship. The implication is hard to avoid that the executive branch desires the power to terminate citizens without due process of law.


Nope. Awlaki stripped himself of his citizenship, when he took up arms against his country. Then it became a matter of national defense and he was an enemy combatant.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/03/cheney-obama-owes-the-bush-administration-an-apology/


Obama, as Cheney says, acted appropriately and made a correct war-time decision. Cheney is right. Ron Paul and this author are WRONG. End of story.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2011, 11:56:59 AM »
Quote

Indeed, as the neoconservative “Project For A New American Century” makes clear, the war on terror is only an opening for the neoconservative imperial ambition to establish US hegemony over the world.



If only it were true.
If it were true we would have established administrative authority over Iraq, the killings would have stopped, they would be living fruitful lives, Dinner Jacket would be quiet, and we would have not have an oil shortage. 
This enumerates only a few of the positive differences a hegemonic move would have caused.

Britannia part deux.


Offline Janny

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2011, 12:02:38 PM »
This is complete, utter BS, too.

Quote
Obama’s assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative.


Awlaki, himself asserted that he was an enemy of the United States and he took credit for the deaths of innocents. Jason Ditz lacks the authority and the knowledge to make such a "conclusion." There is so much being ignored in order to paint Awlaki as a "citizen" whose "rights" were "violated," it's absolutely ridiculous.

This was not a civil matter. It was a military matter. The idea that the constitution was violated is ludicrous, and the slippery slope argument of enabling Obama to declare anyone he wants to a terrorist and execute them is just idiotic, and it belongs on InfoWars, and nowhere else.

ttomm46

  • Guest
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2011, 12:09:13 PM »
This is complete, utter BS, too.

Quote
Obama’s assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative.


Awlaki, himself asserted that he was an enemy of the United States and he took credit for the deaths of innocents. Jason Ditz lacks the authority and the knowledge to make such a "conclusion." There is so much being ignored in order to paint Awlaki as a "citizen" whose "rights" were "violated," it's absolutely ridiculous.

This was not a civil matter. It was a military matter. The idea that the constitution was violated is ludicrous, and the slippery slope argument of enabling Obama to declare anyone he wants to a terrorist and execute them is just idiotic, and it belongs on InfoWars, and nowhere else.
::thumbsup::

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 42036
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: US-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2011, 12:31:44 PM »
Here we go.

I feel so much better seeing this was signed off by Holder's DOJ!

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

Oh, wait...no I don't!!!

 ::gaah::
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 42036
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2011, 12:42:21 PM »
If in the act of targeting terrorists the government didn't know Awlaki was in the crosshairs and was killed with the rest, too bad, bad associations have consequences.  But it appears he was targeted and Holder's DOJ signed off on the hit.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

Now, he is a world class scumbag who deserved to die but I would have preferred a snatch & grab and treason trial & hanging.  Letting the government get used to snuffing citizens they decide are scumbags sets a really bad precedent IMO.

But I'm old fashioned that way.  If they target you next...

Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline AmericanPatriot

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2011, 12:55:27 PM »
Quote
Now, he is a world class scumbag who deserved to die but I would have preferred a snatch & grab and treason trial & hanging.  Letting the government get used to snuffing citizens they decide are scumbags sets a really bad precedent IMO.

But I'm old fashioned that way.  If they target you next...

We have to be careful that we don't pick and choose which freedoms we want to support.

Those of us here have already been named as enemies of the state.

We may see stuff like this here sooner rather than later

Online ToddF

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4519
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2011, 01:47:56 PM »
If you're a wanted man, I would suggest you don't go overseas and take up arms with the avowed enemy. 

S**t might happen.   ::rockets::


Offline jpatrickham

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 943
  • "No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did;
Re: US-born al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2011, 02:06:30 PM »
America Assassinates its Own People and We Don’t Care

Filed under Constitution, Government, Law, Socialism

Quote
"This is in response to da Tagliare article on “Ron Paul Denounces the Killing of a U.S. Terrorist.” I believe da Tagliare is wrong and Ron Paul is right. Assassinating U.S. citizens is murder and never legally acceptable. The Barack Obama administration apparently has some sort of legal ability to do this but has kept their legal reasoning classified due to its supposed sensitive nature. I’m not sure how sound a legal case can be when you refuse to tell the American people you represent what it is. How can a president be held accountable? Why not just classify everything? Who knows, that time may be coming.

I want to be clear. I am NOT defending Anwar al-Awlaki. Based on what we have been told about him being an al Qaeda leader and a terrorist intent on murdering American citizens he deserved the death penalty. What I am pointing out is the danger of acting like liberals in eroding the limits the Constitution places on our Federal government. Conservatives are praising the actions of a corrupt government because we are ok with taking this scumbag out, yet when liberals do the same in the name of their causes we scream foul.

Back to this issue I have with America murdering its citizens. Da Tagliare wrote:

What I don’t understand is that the US had a number of terrorist charges against al-Awlaki, which is why he was one of the most widely hunted al-Qaeda leaders.  Besides, al-Qaeda has declared war on the US and all Americans, which would make any and all of their leadership enemies of the state, which constitute sufficient charges.  And in the case of al-Awlaki, since he is a US citizen, he is also guilty of treason against the country of his citizenship for waging war against it and in giving support and aid to the enemies of the nation.
First of all, I believe Ron Paul is right on. An American citizen has the right to a trial by jury and due process of law no matter how bad or destructive he is. We don’t assassinate murderers (heck, we usually let them go free and cross our fingers into hoping they don’t murder again) and if we did, we would go after the one who did the assassinating."




Read more: America Assassinates its Own People and We Don’t Care | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1286/america-assassinates-its-own-people-and-we-dont-care/#ixzz1ZkNWu3eN

Another view, not necessarily my own. Just something to think about going forward!

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10341
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2011, 02:17:56 PM »
If you're a wanted man, I would suggest you don't go overseas and take up arms with the avowed enemy. 

S**t might happen.   ::rockets::



On the other hand, if you're a foreign enemy combatant captured overseas and they bring you back here, the Justice Dept will stretch credulity to its breaking point to make sure you get a trial in civilian court.

See how this administration has utterly perverted justice and its adherence to the constitution?

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10341
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #57 on: October 03, 2011, 02:19:15 PM »
ETA: I'm going to merge the Awlaki thread into this one, since we're essentially having the same discussion.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10341
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2011, 02:30:48 PM »
...Awlaki stripped himself of his citizenship, when he took up arms against his country....

I've seen this claim made by some here, and others elsewhere.

Could you or someone else please point me to the law or constitutional precept that automatically triggers a loss of citizenship? I'm not being snide. I am willing to be educated. But I have never heard of such an automatic trigger.

To my way of reading the constitution, Awlaki's actions would be defined as "treason". From what I can see, there is a constitutional remedy for traitors, and even under that circumstance, I don't see anywhere that says that even the convicted traitor is stripped of his citizenship prior to execution.

Where does it say that "taking up arms" against the country results in an automatic loss of citizenship? (I'm using the "taking up arms" language for the sake of discussion, even though the evidence seems to suggest that Awlaki was a spiritual and rhetorical leader, not a material or operational one.)

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2011, 02:33:57 PM »

ETA2: Whether he was born here is moot.

This administration capturing an Alackey without multiple hiccups is a virtual impossibility.
After the problems with Bent Laben, especially the post raid catastrophe, they were not
up to the risk.  Using the chosen tactic, if they didn't succeed with the Hellfire it would
have just been another predator attack.

ETA:
He was a collaborator.  By word and deed he showed himself and enemy of the state, a militant in charge of violent aggression.  It is the law if one is attacked he may defend himself, so it goes with the nation
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 02:38:58 PM by Charles Oakwood »