Obama administration considering killing another US citizen without due process

[Victorian Gray]

shouldn't you be eating some poutine and crying into your Labatt's somewhere?

ffs, everyone's a critic.

Don't like poutine. Don't like Labatt (or Molson) Don't think that the 'War on Terror' is particularly humorous.

then again, it's a funny old world, innit....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It seems to me that the President of the United States is in charge of the defense of the country and has to power as the Commander and Chief to order the military into action in it's defense. I don't think even the Supreme Court would have any power to prevent his use of the military in national defense. That is his Constitutionally sworn job. I suspect only impeachment could reign the President in and that he might even override them with a declaration of marshal law. But what do I know.

Well I'm the fly in the ointment.

The President has what authority has been granted him under law and within the boundaries of the Constitution. He has rights and powers, however I find no reason they ought to be unlimited or unquestioned. We had this happen with Bush who decided that his Constitutional position allowed him to effectively veto habeas corpus.

Here's the Constitution on the matter.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

This limited ability is given to Congress, not the executive branch, nevertheless at least one american citizen on US soil was detained without due process. I found that disturbing.

In the case of Obama he has certain powers as you say, however I am not sure his saying something is so quite good enough. I do not believe that there was ever an intent to remove all accountability or transparency in any process tantamount to assassination of a US citizen. Given the level of "oversight" which turned out to be lip service, the credibility of the Presidency has rightly been called into question as we were mislead on some issues.

In the end it may be that there is an unfortunate need to do what is contemplated, but there has been no allegation of immediate threat, nor evidence a plot being aided by this contemptible person that is in anyway subject to independent scrutiny that I am aware of.

Group association, however despicable in itself, does not seem to warrant summary execution without true need, and I submit that there is little reason to trust the unverified.

This needs to be addressed. Do you think that would ever be allowed?

One last thing we ought to consider, and this is hardly limited to Obama.

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

 

[Texashiker]

I'll just leave this here,

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/10/analysis-eric-holder-exposes-himself-in-sweden/

“The fundamental truth [is] that no matter where you live, who you love, or who you are… every human being is, and must be, free and equal in both dignity and [legal] rights,”

If everyone has equal legal rights, how can the obama administration justify killing someone without due process.

 

[WelshBloke]

You guys really have a problem killing people that you're at war with?

 

[Texashiker]

You guys really have a problem killing people that you're at war with?

United States citizens have certain rights.

With you being a subject of the crown, you probably do no understand the idea of rights.

One of these rights is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Another right is this little thing called due process. This is where you go before a jury of random people picked from the community and present your own evidence.

Rights separate citizens from subjects.

 

[WelshBloke]

United States citizens have certain rights.

With you being a subject of the crown, you probably do no understand the idea of rights.

One of these rights is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Another right is this little thing called due process. This is where you go before a jury of random people picked from the community and present your own evidence.

Rights separate citizens from subjects.

How did that work in the civil war then?

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me that the President of the United States is in charge of the defense of the country and has to power as the Commander and Chief to order the military into action in it's defense. I don't think even the Supreme Court would have any power to prevent his use of the military in national defense. That is his Constitutionally sworn job. I suspect only impeachment could reign the President in and that he might even override them with a declaration of marshal law. But what do I know.

Only SCOTUS has the power to determine what is Constitutional or Not at the end of the day. I'd assume the only conflict could arise from a schism twixt the Congress and the Executive and SCOTUS armed with the facts as they interpret them to be might conclude anything from what I've seen.

 

[Texashiker]

How did that work in the civil war then?

Remind me why the United States is not part of the United Kingdom?

 

[LunarRay]

The police are not allowed to summarily execute people that are alleged to have committed a crime. Neither is the federal govt.

I repeat:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.






Hey, if you wish to defend a govt. that believes it has the right to kill American citizens without a trial, feel 'free'.

When that same govt. decides it wants to do the same to you? Who ya gonna call and why would anyone bother to care? You obviously don't.

If our citizen Al Qaeda should visit an appropriate jurisdiction, I'm sure he'll be afforded all the Rights applicable. IF he should become a victim of a drone strike on an Al Qaeda site then there too I'm sure he'll have received all due consideration of the Rights he holds.

BTW, I'm the government... All of us citizens are the Government. We simply elect or appoint folks to stand in our shoes.

 

[bradly1101]

Jeremy Skahill and Glenn Greewald have been working on this:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.

 

[WelshBloke]

Remind me why the United States is not part of the United Kingdom?

Because you don't have kettles or something.

But back to the issue. You have a problem with killing people that you're at war with?
Is this just drones? What about if it was a missile from a helicopter?
What about a sniper? Should a regular grunt be able to shoot him?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not attacking Obama. I, like lost of us, am trying to figure out the answer to your question. Is it war? Is it criminal? Is it both? I really want to say it's war and to send the guy a special delivery. But...but I can't say I agree with ant president getting to decide if a citizen lives or dies. That is way too close to the tyranny we fought so hard to escape.

I am a patriot. I love our country and our constitution. But how do you decide which is more important?

Why the Hell does it matter if he's a citizen? Our law applies equally to anybody under American jurisdiction. OTOH, he's not under American jurisdiction at all in a foreign country, so our law doesn't apply. Looking at it that way, our govt needs to build a case & request extradition, handle it as a police matter.

If it's war, his citizenship matters not at all. Did Loyalists give Revolutionaries a break in 1776 because they were British subjects? Did Free French troops give Waffen SS units a break because some of them were French?

Can't have it both ways.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well I'm the fly in the ointment.

The President has what authority has been granted him under law and within the boundaries of the Constitution. He has rights and powers, however I find no reason they ought to be unlimited or unquestioned. We had this happen with Bush who decided that his Constitutional position allowed him to effectively veto habeas corpus.

Here's the Constitution on the matter.

This limited ability is given to Congress, not the executive branch, nevertheless at least one american citizen on US soil was detained without due process. I found that disturbing.

In the case of Obama he has certain powers as you say, however I am not sure his saying something is so quite good enough. I do not believe that there was ever an intent to remove all accountability or transparency in any process tantamount to assassination of a US citizen. Given the level of "oversight" which turned out to be lip service, the credibility of the Presidency has rightly been called into question as we were mislead on some issues.

In the end it may be that there is an unfortunate need to do what is contemplated, but there has been no allegation of immediate threat, nor evidence a plot being aided by this contemptible person that is in anyway subject to independent scrutiny that I am aware of.

Group association, however despicable in itself, does not seem to warrant summary execution without true need, and I submit that there is little reason to trust the unverified.

This needs to be addressed. Do you think that would ever be allowed

Well said.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'll just leave this here,

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/10/analysis-eric-holder-exposes-himself-in-sweden/



If everyone has equal legal rights, how can the obama administration justify killing someone without due process.

Trolling your own thread is an interesting approach.

What's the matter? Were people taking the issue of extrajudicial execution too seriously for you? Not enough Obama blaming going on?

 

[LunarRay]

Remind me why the United States is not part of the United Kingdom?

Because the one third who remained loyal to the crown couldn't get the one third who favored rebelling to see the light.

Remind me why Texas is not still part of Mexico.... (See the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo... 1848).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because you don't have kettles or something.

But back to the issue. You have a problem with killing people that you're at war with?
Is this just drones? What about if it was a missile from a helicopter?
What about a sniper? Should a regular grunt be able to shoot him?

Well to play devil's advocate, suppose your PM said that someone was a threat to national security and needed to be killed. Would you accept that as automatically true?

My concern is distinctly different than what he's talked about. It's entirely, though regrettably, true that at some point an individual may pose a significant threat which requires drastic action.

If I were to be making this decision I'd ask a lot of question beyond legal justification.

First, has the threat been properly assessed? What is the reliability of information gathered, and has it been analyzed correctly?

Second, is there a reasonable alternative?

Third, are the consequences of a particular action less severe than another approach, or doing nothing at the moment?

All these and more ought to be carefully considered because preemptive action carries a moral implicit of correctness. One cannot simply shoot first then ask questions later. Strike that, it's possible to do so, and that cannot be allowed. That we failed to do so in Iraq with countless lives does not mitigate the same error committed against an individual.

And that brings us to the rub. How can we be sure that such reasoning and effort were properly applied? Is an accusation sufficient grounds for assassination? Who verifies and validates? Are they independent or a rubber stamp? What oversight is there?

I would be much more comfortable if I knew the answers to those questions.

 

[Nebor]

I'll just leave this here,

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/10/analysis-eric-holder-exposes-himself-in-sweden/



If everyone has equal legal rights, how can the obama administration justify killing someone without due process.

I don't buy that. American lives are worth more than non-American lives. Americans have rights that others must be deprived of in order to provide a certain standard of living for Americans. There are a host of other reasons why that line is just feelgood nonsense.

 

[Nebor]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Drone warfare is likely the most significant advancement in warfare since the invention of gunpowder. We can not only kill anyone, anywhere in the world at any time, but we do it without risk to American lives. And we enjoy the deterrent, and psychological effects obtained from our enemy's inability to tell if a drone is nearby or not.

Blow this motherfucker up. He's an enemy of the state, and of the American people. Plain and simple.

 

[Victorian Gray]

If our citizen Al Qaeda should visit an appropriate jurisdiction, I'm sure he'll be afforded all the Rights applicable. IF he should become a victim of a drone strike on an Al Qaeda site then there too I'm sure he'll have received all due consideration of the Rights he holds.

BTW, I'm the government... All of us citizens are the Government. We simply elect or appoint folks to stand in our shoes.

I guess that you're happy with the idea of becoming your own jailer or executioner then.

An out of control security state

Babies on the no fly list:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...fly_list_grounds_some_unusual_young_suspects/

nuns on the no fly list:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2005/09/68973?currentPage=all

justifying killing a 16 year old American:

"GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

 

[WelshBloke]

Well to play devil's advocate, suppose your PM said that someone was a threat to national security and needed to be killed. Would you accept that as automatically true?.

If he was in a war zone and fighting on the side of the enemy I'd be OK with it.
I certainly wouldn't expect the military to have to pussy foot round him whilst engaging the enemy.

 

[Nebor]

I guess that you're happy with the idea of becoming your own jailer or executioner then.

An out of control security state

Babies on the no fly list:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...fly_list_grounds_some_unusual_young_suspects/

nuns on the no fly list:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2005/09/68973?currentPage=all

justifying killing a 16 year old American:

"GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

#1) No one wants babies on airplanes. They should ALL be on the no-fly list.
#2) Nuns are religious extremists. ALL religious extremists should be on the no-fly list.
#3) A bullet from a 16-year old's gun will kill you just as dead as anyone elses. And your reticence in killing a 16-year old makes them even more effective suicide bombers. The vast majority of suicide bombers are under the age of 18, including the last ones that blew up a patrol I was on. They train them all over Waziristan.

 

[Nebor]

If he was in a war zone and fighting on the side of the enemy I'd be OK with it.
I certainly wouldn't expect the military to have to pussy foot round him whilst engaging the enemy.

The difference being that the British government is smart enough not to announce all the British citizens that have been and are killed all the time fighting against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Common sense would tell you that there have been far more British citizens killed fighting against coalition forces than Americans, and yet you've never heard a peep about it. Not only have the Brits smartly kept quiet about it, they're about to quietly make it a total non-issue by simply revoking the citizenship of terror suspects. Oh him? No, he wasn't a UK citizen... anymore. :biggrin:

Some parts of the UK government are run loads better than ours.

 

[Victorian Gray]

#1) No one wants babies on airplanes. They should ALL be on the no-fly list.
#2) Nuns are religious extremists. ALL religious extremists should be on the no-fly list.
#3) A bullet from a 16-year old's gun will kill you just as dead as anyone elses. And your reticence in killing a 16-year old makes them even more effective suicide bombers. The vast majority of suicide bombers are under the age of 18, including the last ones that blew up a patrol I was on. They train them all over Waziristan.

So, you served in your country's armed forces? And yet you don't care about your country's constitution? So why did you serve?

 

[Victorian Gray]

The difference being that the British government is smart enough not to announce all the British citizens that have been and are killed all the time fighting against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Common sense would tell you that there have been far more British citizens killed fighting against coalition forces than Americans, and yet you've never heard a peep about it. Not only have the Brits smartly kept quiet about it, they're about to quietly make it a total non-issue by simply revoking the citizenship of terror suspects. Oh him? No, he wasn't a UK citizen... anymore. :biggrin:

Some parts of the UK government are run loads better than ours.

You like authoritarian governments, eh?

Rights, they are *such* a pain.

 

[Nebor]

So, you served in your country's armed forces? And yet you don't care about your country's constitution? So why did you serve?

I love my country (and am still serving in the Army.) The constitution is a living document, meant to be modified as necessary to fit the times.