Kucinich introduces bill that would prohibit the extrajudicial killing of US citizens

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Poor Kuchinich. This is one of those supposedly whacky ideas (so says the corporate media) of his that actually make sense in the real world.

Hopefully DK runs indy soon. He is too honest for the Dems.

Little dude may not be much, and looks like a gnome, but he gives a crap, something that cannot be said for many up there in DC beyond their own best interests.

I dunno whats up with the Shirley McClain eastern hippie new age thing though.

Oh well, at least hes not a fundie I guess.
 
Last edited:

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
Poor Kuchinich. This is one of those supposedly whacky ideas (so says the corporate media) of his that actually make sense in the real world.

Hopefully DK runs indy soon. He is too honest for the Dems.

Little dude may not be much, and looks like a gnome, but he gives a crap, something that cannot be said for many up there in DC beyond their own best interests.

I dunno whats up with the Shirley McClain eastern hippie new age thing though.

Oh well, at least hes not a fundie I guess.

LOL. His gun-buyback plan even puts him as on outsider for the (D)s. That loon is going nowhere.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Poor Kuchinich. This is one of those supposedly whacky ideas (so says the corporate media) of his that actually make sense in the real world.

Hopefully DK runs indy soon. He is too honest for the Dems.

Little dude may not be much, and looks like a gnome, but he gives a crap, something that cannot be said for many up there in DC beyond their own best interests.

I dunno whats up with the Shirley McClain eastern hippie new age thing though.

Oh well, at least hes not a fundie I guess.
Yep, he's the only democrat in congress that I can tolerate. Sanders is cool too but he is not a democrat. Like dr. Paul, he never had a chance in his party because he wasnt a moderate pussy like everyone else in congress is.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Poor Kuchinich. This is one of those supposedly whacky ideas (so says the corporate media) of his that actually make sense in the real world.

No, it doesn't make sense. What you're saying is that US citizens who join terrorist groups ought to be able to wage war against the US with impunity if we're not capable of arresting them. To hell with that.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
No, it doesn't make sense. What you're saying is that US citizens who join terrorist groups ought to be able to wage war against the US with impunity if we're not capable of arresting them. To hell with that.
you're going by the lincolnite definition of treason.
That said, killing u.s. citizens without trial is actually what's waging war against these States united... so that means Obama and Congress are waging war against these States united.

On a side note... I've never understood why the Republicans say how much they hate Obama, then they give him all of these extra powers that govt by the civil power is no supposed to have. They really love Obama since they're just like him.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
In the land of the free we now need bills to protect us from the executive branch. We should all be proud.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
In the land of the free we now need bills to protect us from the executive branch. We should all be proud.
It's war, dude. No due process rights in war, only the accepted rules of warfare. Personally I would of course be against such assassinations of Americans or foreigners within American jurisdiction or that of our allies. But if Americans choose to go to hostile countries and work on behalf of those with whom we are at war, then I agree with Obama - they become legitimate military targets who should derive no protection from being citizens of the country they reject. I'm actually much more comfortable with targeting Americans doing this than with targeting foreigners.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
It's war, dude. No due process rights in war, only the accepted rules of warfare. Personally I would of course be against such assassinations of Americans or foreigners within American jurisdiction or that of our allies. But if Americans choose to go to hostile countries and work on behalf of those with whom we are at war, then I agree with Obama - they become legitimate military targets who should derive no protection from being citizens of the country they reject. I'm actually much more comfortable with targeting Americans doing this than with targeting foreigners.

Actually they are getting some form of due process, not just the same kind of protections that someone facing a criminal trial in the US would get. Would I want Americans being killed with that kind of due process on a regular basis? Absolutely not, but when you go hang out with terrorists in foreign countries and wage war against the US you've kind of waived your right to trial by jury.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
It's war, dude. No due process rights in war, only the accepted rules of warfare. Personally I would of course be against such assassinations of Americans or foreigners within American jurisdiction or that of our allies. But if Americans choose to go to hostile countries and work on behalf of those with whom we are at war, then I agree with Obama - they become legitimate military targets who should derive no protection from being citizens of the country they reject. I'm actually much more comfortable with targeting Americans doing this than with targeting foreigners.

Just make sure you dont become a target of your govt. What a sad way to look at what our govt is doing. It is just war as a justification for tossing out a right to trial. Fuck, even Bin Laden was given the process of being indicted by a grand jury for his crimes.

Btw there certainly are due process rights in war, even if you are fighting for the enemy. Unless you are in the heat of battle. Historically you were put on trial for your crimes. Not anymore. Say something the executive deems a threat to the state and now a predator is looking to terminate you.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Actually they are getting some form of due process, not just the same kind of protections that someone facing a criminal trial in the US would get. Would I want Americans being killed with that kind of due process on a regular basis? Absolutely not, but when you go hang out with terrorists in foreign countries and wage war against the US you've kind of waived your right to trial by jury.

No you havent waived your rights. Letting the executive define the process for which they kill you is batshit insane.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,709
871
126
you're going by the lincolnite definition of treason.
That said, killing u.s. citizens without trial is actually what's waging war against these States united... so that means Obama and Congress are waging war against these States united.

On a side note... I've never understood why the Republicans say how much they hate Obama, then they give him all of these extra powers that govt by the civil power is no supposed to have. They really love Obama since they're just like him.

Does the US allow trials without capturing the accused?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
LOL. His gun-buyback plan even puts him as on outsider for the (D)s. That loon is going nowhere.

He's probably sort of a mirror image of Ron Paul in that regard. Both are not willing enough to compromise on enough of their values to be accepted by the either major party.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
So what does this mean? extrajudicial

I dont have a law degree?

What does the bill actually say?

In English.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
It means if I interpret the OP correctly that a U.S. citizen couldn't be targeted for a drone attack without being tried (even in absentia or without the accused present) and found guilty in a court of law.

As of now afaik there is no judicial review over the targeting of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant in the war on terror
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I believe even if this bill did pass it would face a good chance of being struck down by the SCOTUS if the Exec branch decided to litigate it.

The President has a clear Constitutional duty to protect the USA. A US citizen on foreign soil waging war or terrorism against the US is, conceivably, a threat and thus the President may have a Constitutional obligation to take action. legislation cannot over rule the Constitution.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Actually they are getting some form of due process, not just the same kind of protections that someone facing a criminal trial in the US would get. Would I want Americans being killed with that kind of due process on a regular basis? Absolutely not, but when you go hang out with terrorists in foreign countries and wage war against the US you've kind of waived your right to trial by jury.
Agreed. I would not want generals making these determinations for non-combatants, but at the highest level, I don't think we can fight a war by giving the enemy's leadership and training echelon a pass and still somehow expect to win.

Just make sure you dont become a target of your govt. What a sad way to look at what our govt is doing. It is just war as a justification for tossing out a right to trial. Fuck, even Bin Laden was given the process of being indicted by a grand jury for his crimes.

Btw there certainly are due process rights in war, even if you are fighting for the enemy. Unless you are in the heat of battle. Historically you were put on trial for your crimes. Not anymore. Say something the executive deems a threat to the state and now a predator is looking to terminate you.
Certainly these people deserve to be put on trial if they are caught and in our custody. But when they are at large, they should run the same risks as any other member of the enemy's leadership and training echelon.

I'm certainly no fan of Obama; I like him even less than I liked Bush. But I don't think this is something he takes lightly. I suspect he finds it as distasteful as does Kucinich, and were McCain President he'd probably be co-sponsoring the bill in the Senate, but as the man at the top he thinks it's something he must do for those he leads. Is it bad? Certainly. But very little in war isn't bad.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I have no problem killing enemy US Citizens on the battlefield - but even I got a bit queezy when he was killed nowhere close to one...and never was on one.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,446
136
I have no problem killing enemy US Citizens on the battlefield - but even I got a bit queezy when he was killed nowhere close to one...and never was on one.

Terrorism has changed the battlefield, it is now everywhere and anywhere.

Time to restrict our government with new laws that take this into consideration. Their excuse must be cut to pieces and thrown out.