Reply With QuoteYou will be better off in the long run if you do not play moderator of this forum.Originally Posted by bryant
I smell a ban coming up.
You will be better off in the long run if you do not play moderator of this forum.
Having spent four years in Afghanistan, I don't think the fact that someone who chose to be the enemy of the United States, regardless of where they were born, would have slowed my trigger finger. Whatisname turned his back on the country of his birth and called for a global holy war to wipe us out (North and South America, Europe, Australia, and whatever parts of Asia and Africa disagreed with him). If you don't think he needed to be killed, maybe it would be good to move to Yemen and see how good life is there. Or Afghanistan, fly in, rent an apartment, and try to have a regular life.
Don't get wrapped up with the idea that the Gov't is going to start sending Apaches after gun owners.
I understand all the factors that go into why he was killed. However, I don't agree with more or less the, "how" he was killed. Yes, he did betray the country of his birth, but he was still a citizen. He was never officially charged by the Federal Government. Not for Treason, Terrorism, or any other offense that I know of. My point is, if he was worth dropping a bomb on, then they should have at least filed charges.
Adam Gadahn, for example, is on the FBI Most Wanted List for treason. Therefore, he is fair game. Same category, but for different charges, as a Bonnie and Clyde, or John Dillinger.
While I'm not getting wrapped up in the idea of the Government targeting gun owners, I am worried about setting a precedent that won't completely rule something like that out.
Filling charges is a criminal procedure while dropping a bomb is a wartime action.
Two distinctly different things covered by two different parts of the constitution and carried out by two different parts of the government.
He did not commit a "crime" in the traditional sense (unlike Adam Gadahn [no longer on the FBI's Most-Wanted List], Bonnie & Clyde, or John Dillinger) , but declared a defacto war against the US.
btw, if a drone see's Adam walking around, I can assure you they would push the button.
Last edited by SpudmanWP; 07-19-2012 at 01:42 AM.
So in your opinion, when the government suspects a citizen is a threat, they have the right to assassinate them?
Also, according to the FBI's website, Gadahn is #1 on the Terrorist Most Wanted List
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists
There are two things here that people need to keep separate. One is that this guy is traitorous scum and deserves to die. The other is that we are a nation of laws, and this as yet undefined area of law needs to be clearly defined.
We cannot have the government issuing assassination orders on any American they deem to be a threat. The certainty that such a power would be abused badly sooner or later should be obvious to all of us.
What we need is a constitutional legal procedure that allows our government and military to act quickly and decisively against enemies of our nation who happen to be citizens of it, yet satisfies the legal requirement of due process. This lawsuit will force the government to confront that issue, which it has thus far worked hard to avoid doing, and that is a good thing.
If the federal courts rule that these assassination orders are illegal because there is inadequate due process (which seems likely), then the executive will have to come up with a process that is legal. It may require the Congress to act and pass a law codifying such a procedure.
Either way, whatever they come up with will also be tested in the courts by lawsuits. If it passes constitutional muster, then we are good. If not, they will have to go back and try again. That is how our system works.
If he is actively engaged in Terrorist (ie warlike) activities and any attempt to capture him would likely end up in the loss of soldier's lives, then yes.
The "Most Wanted Terrorists List" is not the same as being on the classic FBI 10 Most Wanted List.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten
That about sums it up. Thank you for taking three pages of rhetoric, and making sense of it all.
I wouldn't suggest sending anyone in to try and capture him. It's obvious, given the area, that would be unfeasible. However, even if you were able to capture him, you'd still have no legal basis to do so, because for the umpteenth time, he was never charged with a crime!
You cannot pick and choose who gets Constitutional protection, and who doesn't. Plain and simple. If you put your hand on a Bible, and swear to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, as Obama did, then you don't go around using the Constitution as toilet paper, while protecting it from said foreign, and domestic enemies.
Nit picking a bit, don't you think?The "Most Wanted Terrorists List" is not the same as being on the classic FBI 10 Most Wanted List.
IIRC the third person in the back of the car was a bomb maker. If it makes it to court, the aruguement will be; "We are terribly sorry, but he wasn't "the" target. We were trying to take out a known bomb maker, he and his son were unfortunately in the car of a known terrorist. Therefore it was their own fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time..."
He does not have to be charged with a crime if he is actively engaged in terrorist activity. He is then an Unlawful Combatant, US citizen or not.
If and when a US Citizen is captured as an Unlawful Combatant, the courts have said that he is due "Due Process", but they have not said anything on what measures can and cannot be taken against a US Citizen Unlawful Combatant pre-capture.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. In Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld the court ruled that Americans defined as illegal combatants are still required to be given due process before they are imprisoned, much less killed. Of course if an American illegal combatant is shooting at American troops, they have the right to kill him in self-defense. But to issue an assassination order without due process; I am pretty certain the courts will rule that to be totally illegal.
Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld was all about what to do with a detainee AFTER they were in custody, not before.
If you have a quote from the majority ruling, post it.
"(...) the US Government assassinating citizens with out due process."
That's scarry indeed. When exactly does a US citizen get killed without a trial by the US government?
Posting Permissions
