america assassinates american citizen without trial

[Moonbeam]

You may find it funny but there is no clear cut legal answer on the issue. We have argued and determined what exactly due process is, what is means, and how it applies to people for over 200 years. This is a new facet, and what due process looks like in this context might be different from what due process looks like for an old lady who steals a purse in New York City.

Targeted killings have a lot of ethical and political components to work through. There is already a large apparatus in place with drone strikes in general, and the government should go to even greater lengths and checks before targeting an American citizen overseas, including probably warnings/announcements, opportunities for the person to turn himself in, threat, opportunity, and the very highest levels of permission.

People cannot use their citizenship as a magic shield to protect themselves when they join our enemies overseas and work to carry out violence attacks on us.

Are you an engineer? You have pin-head down cold. I do love your moral devotion, misplaced though it may be.

 

[ichy]

So all people suspected of a crime should surrender, or they will be shot on sight?

Last I heard, freedom of speech was not a crime.

No, but people who actively continue to wage war against the United States should be.

 

[Texashiker]

You're comparing someone who fled the country in lieu of committing a crime to avoid prosecution with someone who left the country to work with people who plot to kill Americans and bring down the US government. It doesn't work.

You know what does not work, is the government killing its citizens without due process.

The US government executed an innocent man, and "somehow" that is ok.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is the very cornerstone of our legal system.

This. Exactly. This is a war, and the object is to kill the other side and break their things, not to "bring them to justice".

We can not make excuses for executing our own citizens.

At one time it was legal to kill blacks.

At one time it was legal to kill native American Indians.

In various states it was legal to kill Mormons.

And now its ok to kill US citizens without a trial, or any kind of due process, as long as we have a good excuse?

No, but people who actively continue to wage war against the United States should be.

Her209 already pointed out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

US citizens can not be convicted of treason with a trial.

Article thee, Section 3 of the of the United States Constitution - Even if a US citizen wages war against the US, they are still entitled to a trial.

 

[Moonbeam]

Did the Union Army arrest Confederate soldiers for trial or shoot them? Do police shoot you if you draw on them? What happened to due process here? Do process was applied. They got what they were due, and so did this asshole in Yemen.

A person who fosters the philosophy that killing innocent people is justified and works to achieve that end forfeits all rights including the right to life. A President who did not take an opportunity to end such a life where an arrest couldn't be done would be guilty of treason.

 

[JockoJohnson]

You know what does not work, is the government killing its citizens without due process.

The US government executed an innocent man, and "somehow" that is ok.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is the very cornerstone of our legal system.





We can not make excuses for executing our own citizens.

At one time it was legal to kill blacks.

At one time it was legal to kill native American Indians.

In various states it was legal to kill Mormons.

And now its ok to kill US citizens without a trial, or any kind of due process, as long as we have a good excuse?




Her209 already pointed out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason



US citizens can not be convicted of treason with a trial.

Article thee, Section 3 of the of the United States Constitution - Even if a US citizen wages war against the US, they are still entitled to a trial.

Newsflash--we are in a war. Anwar was involved in this war. What do you say about the Civil War and all of the people killed? They were US citizens as well. Get your head out of your ass. This isn't the same as that child rapist movie producer who hid in France. The US was not going to bomb him.

Edit: Dammit, Moonie beat me to the reference about the Civil War.

 

[airdata]

I think once you switch sides you lose what rights you may have had to begin with.

To keep our justice system from being as big a joke as it is, it would of course be the right american thing to do to give a trial and what have you... Or we could just kill him or claim to kill him and dump his body at sea.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Good to see the usual bigots and trolls proudly thumping their chests and proclaiming how good it is to unilaterally execute a US citizen without due process. OF course, these same clueless idiots would totally oppose this if it happened to anyone they knew, let alone a family member. Hypocrisy for the win!

So no one minds that a Preseident can write you name on a piece of paper and have you executed? Has anyone read history to see how things like this are not a good thing?

Dude hasn't even been convicted of a crime, let alone a crime that could sentance him to death. In fact, a lot of what he has done would quality as free speech, and not even illegal.

But don't let that stop you from proudly proclaiming your ignorance and bloodthirstiness to kill anyone you personally don't like. I mean, evidence, laws, trials are all optional in the US, right?

Disgusting that it happened, even more disgusting that so many so-called "patriots" support it. Shows they don't have a clue what patriot even means.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Those attacking Obama are concerned that since he did this and will get away with it, he will now start to come after your women; your white virgin women.

 

[Texashiker]

Did the Union Army arrest Confederate soldiers for trial or shoot them? <snip> A President who did not take an opportunity to end such a life where an arrest couldn't be done would be guilty of treason.

The president took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Article three, Section 3 of the of the United States Constitution says that no US citizen shall be found guilty of treason, or of waging war, without a trial.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

As per the presidents oath, I expect him to uphold our laws and our Constitution.

 

[BladeVenom]

Did the Union Army arrest Confederate soldiers for trial or shoot them? Do police shoot you if you draw on them? What happened to due process here? Do process was applied. They got what they were due, and so did this asshole in Yemen.

A person who fosters the philosophy that killing innocent people is justified and works to achieve that end forfeits all rights including the right to life. A President who did not take an opportunity to end such a life where an arrest couldn't be done would be guilty of treason.

Was that the same answer you gave when Bush was sending suspected terrorist to Guantanamo Bay?

 

[SAWYER]

I'm losing sleep over this dirtbag being taken out like the rabid dog he was

 

[a777pilot]

Outstanding!

LOL! I hope he likes his 72 virgins.

 

[woolfe9999]

There is direct evidence of this man plotting terrorist acts, including ones actually attempted and carried out, such as the Fort Hood shooting and underwear bomber. And that's just what the public knows about. He was hiding in a place where capture was not feasible. Kudos to this administration for this, and kudos for utterly gutting AQ's top leadership over the past 2 years. And it isn't just this guy and OBL either.

 

[Texashiker]

There is direct evidence of this man plotting terrorist acts, including ones actually attempted and carried out, such as the Fort Hood shooting and underwear bomber.

So if the public knows about something, the government can execute the person without a trial?

We can not pick and choose which of our laws to follow, and which ones to disregard.

The president took an oath to uphold out laws, and our Constitution. Executing a US citizen without a trial is not upholding those laws.

The president is not a king, he can not be judge, jury and executioner. No person shall be devoid of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

 

[SandEagle]

Outstanding!

LOL! I hope he likes his 72 virgins.

the 72 virgins thing is a myth. google it.

 

[Budmantom]

These are the 1st two casualties of the Obama re-election campaign.

 

[woolfe9999]

So if the public knows about something, the government can execute the person without a trial?

We can not pick and choose which of our laws to follow, and which ones to disregard.

The president took an oath to uphold out laws, and our Constitution. Executing a US citizen without a trial is not upholding those laws.

The president is not a king, he can not be judge, jury and executioner. No person shall be devoid of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Not when he's renounced U.S. citizenship, is living on foreign soil, and capture is not feasible. Sorry, no.

 

[Deudalus]

There is direct evidence of this man plotting terrorist acts, including ones actually attempted and carried out, such as the Fort Hood shooting and underwear bomber. And that's just what the public knows about. He was hiding in a place where capture was not feasible. Kudos to this administration for this, and kudos for utterly gutting AQ's top leadership over the past 2 years. And it isn't just this guy and OBL either.

Completely agree.

You guys arguing that he should not have been killed are way too close minded about this situation.

He was plotting violence against our country and our people.

It seems you are arguing that no matter what no one can be killed without a trial. That means cops shouldn't have weapons. They should be chasing armed robbers with only handcuffs hoping to subdue them because no one can be killed without a trial.

The argument should be was this person a "terrorist" plotting with others to kill our citizens. If that answer is yes then this was basically self defense as far as I'm concerned.

Now if you can make a legitimate claim that he was not plotting with others to kill our citizens then I'm all ears.

 

[Texashiker]

You guys arguing that he should not have been killed are way too close minded about this situation.

We can not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we should follow.

If you want to call me closed minded, that is fine.

Today, I am ashamed to be an US Citizen. Two US citizens were assassinated by the US government, and the people applaud.

Whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Whatever happened to due process? The right to a speedy trial, and a trial by jury are the cornerstones of our legal system. We can not allow the government to erode those rights.

President obama took an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution. Assassinating US Citizens is not what I call upholding our laws.

Everyone that voted for obama, your president just wiped his ass with our Constitution and flushed it down the toilet, I hope you are happy.

It seems you are arguing that no matter what no one can be killed without a trial.

No, there is a difference in waging war, and committing a crime. Anwar al-Awlaki has been accused of treason and of waging war against the US.

Article three, Section 3 of the of the United States Constitution covers treason. Even if a US citizen wages war against the US, they are still entitled to a trial.

President obama took an oath to upload the Constitution. Under Article three, Section 3 Anwar al-Awlaki was entitled to a trial.

 

[Deudalus]

We can not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we should follow.

If you want to call me closed minded, that is fine.

Today, I am ashamed to be an US Citizen. Two US citizens were assassinated by the US government, and the people applaud.

Whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Whatever happened to due process? The right to a speedy trial, and a trial by jury are the cornerstones of our legal system. We can not allow the government to erode those rights.

President obama took an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution. Assassinating US Citizens is not what I call upholding our laws.

Everyone that voted for obama, your president just wiped his ass with our Constitution and flushed it down the toilet, I hope you are happy.

So answer this simple question.

If there is an armed robbery in progress for example, and peoples lives are in being threatened by a person committing this robbery does a cop have a right to shoot that person and kill them?

 

[sactoking]

1. The US received credible intelligence that AQ leadership was at a specific location in Yemen. An airstrike was launched which killed 4 people including al-Awlaki. The intelligence re: AQ leadership was clearly correct given the identities of the other three casualties. Thus, by induction, the fact that al-Awlaki was AQ leadership was also correct.
2. Al-Awlaki was convicted in Yemen of crimes for inciting to kill foreigners.
3. The cries of "due process, due process!" are misplaced. Extending the logic they have shown, if an American citizen were to actively take up arms against the United States on foreign soil there would exist no remedy other than capture. If said citizen is sufficiently well-armed they could wound or kill dozens or hundreds of other American citizens sent on 'capture only' orders. In effect, a foreign power could overwhelm all facets of the US military by using a small contingent of US citizens who, allegedly, could not be fired upon without due process.

 

[Budmantom]

We can not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we should follow.

If you want to call me closed minded, that is fine.

Today, I am ashamed to be an US Citizen. Two US citizens were assassinated by the US government, and the people applaud.

Whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Whatever happened to due process? The right to a speedy trial, and a trial by jury are the cornerstones of our legal system. We can not allow the government to erode those rights.

President obama took an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution. Assassinating US Citizens is not what I call upholding our laws.

Everyone that voted for obama, your president just wiped his ass with our Constitution and flushed it down the toilet, I hope you are happy.




No, there is a difference in waging war, and committing a crime. Anwar al-Awlaki has been accused of treason and of waging war against the US.

Article three, Section 3 of the of the United States Constitution covers treason. Even if a US citizen wages war against the US, they are still entitled to a trial.

President obama took an oath to upload the Constitution. Under Article three, Section 3 Anwar al-Awlaki was entitled to a trial.

Just think of it as two less Democrats voting for Obama.

 

[woolfe9999]

Completely agree.

You guys arguing that he should not have been killed are way too close minded about this situation.

He was plotting violence against our country and our people.

It seems you are arguing that no matter what no one can be killed without a trial. That means cops shouldn't have weapons. They should be chasing armed robbers with only handcuffs hoping to subdue them because no one can be killed without a trial.

The argument should be was this person a "terrorist" plotting with others to kill our citizens. If that answer is yes then this was basically self defense as far as I'm concerned.

Now if you can make a legitimate claim that he was not plotting with others to kill our citizens then I'm all ears.

Precisely. The cop analogy is a good one. Al-Awaki was hiding in a foreign country and could not be apprehended and put on trial. Cops have the right to use deadly force when someone suspected of one or more deadly crimes cannot be apprehended. They can and have killed people suspected of much less, including people fleeing from the scene of a bank robbery. But wait, shouldn't they have let him go rather than shooting him, so that they could maybe capture him later and put him on trial?

Also, these implications that the man is innocent or that his crimes consist of "free speech" are seriously offensive. The authorities claim they have evidence of his guilt. They cannot release all the evidence they have to the public. We can choose to believe they're lying. We can choose to believe it's all a conspiracy to target an innocent man, just because they can. We can choose to believe the Bush administration pulled off 911. For that matter, we can choose to believe there never has been a terrorist organization called Al Qeada and that the government made it all up.

Believe whatever the fuck you want to believe. I'm glad he's dead.

- wolf

 

[Jaskalas]

Obligatory, can our troops come home now?

 

[Texashiker]

3. The cries of "due process, due process!" are misplaced.

Misplaced? The US Constitution is misplaced?

If said citizen is sufficiently well-armed they could wound or kill dozens or hundreds of other American citizens sent on 'capture only' orders. In effect, a foreign power could overwhelm all facets of the US military by using a small contingent of US citizens who, allegedly, could not be fired upon without due process.

Resisting arrest is one thing, execution is another.

I see no problem shooting someone that is resisting arrest. But a drone can not arrest anyone.

Anwar al-Awlaki was executed.

If there is an armed robbery in progress for example, and peoples lives are in being threatened by a person committing this robbery does a cop have a right to shoot that person and kill them?

You can not tell the difference between someone commenting a crime and waging war?

Anwar al-Awlaki has been accused of treason and of waging war. Its not the same thing as robbing a liquor store.