• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama administration considering killing another US citizen without due process

Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
How does obama get to keep his noble peace prize when he kills his own citizens without due process?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/10/drone-attack-controversy_n_4758546.html
An American citizen who is a member of al-Qaida is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn't completed.
Click to expand...

This has already happened before,

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/

Anwar al-Awlaki - US citizen
Samir Khan - US citizen
Jude Kenan Mohammad - US citizen
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - US citizen

Were all killed by drone strikes without due process.
 
Hey - if some of you can justify shooting a drunk woman in the face for knocking on a man's door at 2am, then this should be a non issue.
 
Nice to see that conservatives now support Al-Qaida over their own president. That takes a lot of class.
 
highland145 said:
So I, am American, am trying to kill your wife. You're going to stand by and watch?
Click to expand...

There is a difference in talking and doing.

If you told your co-workers you were going to kill your wife when you got home, would it be ok for the police to kick in your door and shoot you before you left work?

Even if you did kill your wife you are still entitled to a fair trial.
 
Texashiker said:
There is a difference in talking and doing.

If you told your co-workers you were going to kill your wife when you got home, would it be ok for the police to kick in your door and shoot you before you left work?

Even if you did kill your wife you are still entitled to a fair trial.
Click to expand...
Threats with the present ability to do so are legitimate threats and would be handled that way by the police. Look into CDV arrests.

Your wife would be dead and I would be in Yemen, partying like it's 1999.

Why don't you love your wife?
 
MomentsofSanity said:
So how many more Americans should he be allowed to kill in terrorist strikes? How many American soldiers do you support being killed trying to capture him in his remote, highly guarded location?
Click to expand...

Who decided he was guilty? Who presented the evidence against him? Announcing that someone is a terrorist doesn't constitute due process. The guy may very well need to die, but simply saying he's a terrorist and killing him is a very bad precedent.
 
bshole said:
Nice to see that conservatives now support Al-Qaida over their own president. That takes a lot of class.
Click to expand...

Nice to see liberals wanting to circumvent consitutional rights and kill american citizens without a trial to support "their" president. You stay classy now.
 
Greenman said:
Who decided he was guilty? Who presented the evidence against him? Announcing that someone is a terrorist doesn't constitute due process. The guy may very well need to die, but simply saying he's a terrorist and killing him is a very bad precedent.
Click to expand...

There are processes in place, again due to congressional action just after 9/11.

Let me guess. Because it's not for the public click to decide if there's guilt it's bad right?
 
MomentsofSanity said:
So how many more Americans should he be allowed to kill in terrorist strikes?
Click to expand...

Allowed to kill? That is an interesting idea.

Should Adam Lanaza been executed before he killed anyone?

Should gang members be rounded up and put to death in mass?

Why do we have gang and drug problems if we can kill people before the fact?
 
Greenman said:
Who decided he was guilty? Who presented the evidence against him? Announcing that someone is a terrorist doesn't constitute due process. The guy may very well need to die, but simply saying he's a terrorist and killing him is a very bad precedent.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It boggles my mind how willing people are to give the president judge and executioner status in this country.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
There are processes in place, again due to congressional action just after 9/11.

Let me guess. Because it's not for the public click to decide if there's guilt it's bad right?
Click to expand...

Processes written by our govt to allow it to kill citizens without a trial. Hmm, what could go wrong?
 
Texashiker said:
Allowed to kill? That is an interesting idea.

Should Adam Lanaza been executed before he killed anyone?

Should gang members be rounded up and put to death in mass?

Why do we have gang and drug problems if we can kill people before the fact?
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. Again. How do you propose detaining him for trial?
 
Genx87 said:
Processes written by our govt to allow it to kill citizens without a trial. Hmm, what could go wrong?
Click to expand...

I know right? I mean they do it every day. And it's not like when they have the person (it's only happened once where an American was targeted, contrary to what the OP implies) was openly engaged in terrorist activities against the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top