Obama invokes state secrets privelage in assassination case

[SAWYER]

If this was about Bush there would be way more replies and about 300 smilies, lol hypocrisy

Well technically this is sorta about Bush, well Bush Part 2 anyway.

 

[JTsyo]

Can you try someone in the US without them present?

 

[Craig234]

I don't disagree with any of your assessments. I do, however, think that the broader political culture in this country is a more interesting issue than the composition of the two political parties. Everything about our politics is first about our culture.

Which is why I would emphaize my second point over my first. There is no question that republicans fearmonger on the terrorism issue, and there is no question that it works politically. Quite simply, they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work. The question of most pertinent interest IMO is: why does it work? You won't find the answer without broadening your inquiry beyond the politicians themselves.

- wolf

Right - which is why my post led away from the leaders to the problem being more about the ignorance of too many in society that causes the political problem.

We seem to be agreeing except that you are not seeming to mention the later part of my original post on this.

 

[nobodyknows]

If this was about Bush there would be way more replies and about 300 smilies, lol hypocrisy

Well technically this is sorta about Bush, well Bush Part 2 anyway.

Harvey would be here with pages and pages of his "criminal cabal" schtick.

 

[woolfe9999]

Right - which is why my post led away from the leaders to the problem being more about the ignorance of too many in society that causes the political problem.

We seem to be agreeing except that you are not seeming to mention the later part of my original post on this.

You'd be surprised but I actually do read all of most of your posts, at least in threads in which I actively participate. I saw this:

The real issue here isn't about the groupings we're discussing, it's the basic lack of appreciation of the 'rights' issues of a lot of citizens. We need more civics education.

This is fine, but it doesn't even begin to cover it. The fact is, we learn basic civics starting in middle school, and usually re-learn the same material 2-3 times in high school. And we promptly forget it because no one gives a shit. I raised this issue of civics education in a recent thread, and I got a torrent of replies from people saying it was all a bunch of useless crap because you'll never use it in your job. In other words, it doesn't translate into $$. I suspect that this attitude is typical of most Americans, and that it is transferred to our kids, if only unconsiously.

Am I getting closer to the heart of the problem?

- wolf

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

This is fine, but it doesn't even begin to cover it. The fact is, we learn basic civics starting in middle school, and usually re-learn the same material 2-3 times in high school. And we promptly forget it because no one gives a shit. I raised this issue of civics education in a recent thread, and I got a torrent of replies from people saying it was all a bunch of useless crap because you'll never use it in your job. In other words, it doesn't translate into $$. I suspect that this attitude is typical of most Americans, and that it is transferred to our kids, if only unconsiously.

I think this is a big part of the problem. Today's kids and young adults just don't know or care to learn about basic concepts like the principles of US laws, and the concept of how our government works. All they know is how CTU tortured people in 24 to save lives, or what someone did in West Wing. They have no real knowledge about the reality of the government.

In the past year, I have seen many posters say 100% factually incorrect statements, that they believe. I've heard that "Congress is supposed to do what the President tells them", "The President takes an oath to defend us", "police are allowed to shoot on sight criminals:", etc......

All of these statements are totally wrong, are truly easy to verify as wrong, but they still believe them. Even with this topic, the law is clear. But a large part of the country still believes as soon as anyone says someone is a terrorist, all their rights are automatically lost, and we can do anything to them. Given that these people also don't want to believe anything differently, I don't know what can be done, since you can't make someone believe the truth.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think this is a big part of the problem. Today's kids and young adults just don't know or care to learn about basic concepts like the principles of US laws, and the concept of how our government works. All they know is how CTU tortured people in 24 to save lives, or what someone did in West Wing. They have no real knowledge about the reality of the government.

In the past year, I have seen many posters say 100% factually incorrect statements, that they believe. I've heard that "Congress is supposed to do what the President tells them", "The President takes an oath to defend us", "police are allowed to shoot on sight criminals:", etc......

All of these statements are totally wrong, are truly easy to verify as wrong, but they still believe them. Even with this topic, the law is clear. But a large part of the country still believes as soon as anyone says someone is a terrorist, all their rights are automatically lost, and we can do anything to them. Given that these people also don't want to believe anything differently, I don't know what can be done, since you can't make someone believe the truth.

It's a matter of the ends justifies the means. If there is a law or Constitutional prohibition against something, then many are quick to mention it if it goes against a personal agenda, however these same people will adopt the same stance that their opponents do. They are in fact two sides of the same coin.

Wolf's comment about education is valid too. People are interested in getting what's needed for a job, but exposing them to challenging and contrary concepts unrelated to earning a living? That's just a waste of time. Consequently many of us are in basic agreement who at other times have sharp differences in opinion because having a broader vision isn't a distraction, it's a necessity.

We live in a nation of educated idiots, and the political landscape reflects that unfortunate truth.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by GarfieldtheCat
-snip-
Disgusting. And how anyone thinks Obama is a liberal socialist while doing this is crazy too.

When are people going to realize that socialists'/liberals' support for and pursuit of more power for government is not much more creating an authoritarian government?

Some like it when the government gets the power to beat up on big bad corporations, but then after getting all that power how easy does it make it for the government to beat up on little ole us?

Fern

 

[BeauJangles]

Let me repeat this slowly because you don't get it.

1. Fifth Amendment


Answer yes or no to these questions:

1. Do you dispute he is a US citizen?

2. Do you dispute the 5th amendment?

If you answer no, how on earth can you then ignore these very things?

If you answer yes, provide some proof of your position. "He's hiding" doesn't mean jack, and you know it. Have you heard this really old concept in the US legal system of "presumed innocent"? It applies here, he is a US citizen. e doesn't have to prove anything. The burden is on the state to prove guilt.

Again, he is a US citizen. Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean you can take his rights away. These are simple law concepts. Do you somehow disagree, or are you just hearing "terrorism", and once again thinking somehow that you and the gov can ignore the law?

By your logic, any criminal hiding in the US should be executed if they don't surrender to the authorities? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

The way we have constructed the Central Intelligence Agency, it doesn't matter whether he's a US citizen or not. They're going to do exactly what they want to do, regardless of the law and without consequence. The more pressing questions here are:

Do we want to reign in the CIA and NSA's power?

If yes, how do we go about accomplishing that?

if no, can we live with the fact that they, by default, operate above the law?

 

[werepossum]

To those rabidly against this - where do you draw the line? If he's standing next to Osama bin Ladin, do you strike, or does this man's right to due process prohibit harming him? If you want to hit a meeting of al Qaeda leadership, must you first verify that he is definitely not attending? If he is participating in an attack, can he be shot, or must he be captured and Mirandized? If your preference is for America to lose and just go home, just say so, but otherwise I'm assuming that most of you do want to defeat al Qaeda and avoid a second 9/11-size attack, so I'm curious as to exactly how far this man's bubble of sanctity extends.

 

[Darwin333]

These are all people who are not within US jurisdiction, nor within the jurisdiction of countries who will extradite them for trial. You think we should capture this guy - how many US soldiers and Marines should die in this attempt before it is too costly? How many innocent Yemenis should be allowed to be killed in the attempt to capture him?

How many people died to give us those rights you are so willing to trample on? Are you really that willing to piss on their graves?

I agree that he should not be killed without due process IF he is in our custody, but until then he is an enemy combatant, no different from those Americans who traveled to Germany to fight for the Nazi cause, entitled to no more protection than any other al Queda operative or leader.

He hasn't even been charged with a crime yet you want the President to have the ability to be judge, jury and executioner? Charge him with a friggen crime, involve the courts (even a friggen classified court) and THEN maybe I will agree with your position. As it stands the President of the United States does not have the authority to selectively decide which citizens of the United States the 5th amendment does and does not apply to.

This has nothing to do with this particular asshole. This has everything to do with the executive branch doing things that are blatantly unconstitutional. Are you really supporting that? There has to be a better way and if there isn't, I still stand for our rights and I always will. I would much rather have this asshole out in the wild than the executive branch having the ability to suspend constitutional rights of United States citizens at his, and only his, discretion.

Our rights are more important than my life, your life and all the other lives in this thread. I am sorry if you disagree but you are wrong if you do.

I think Congress should make a clear declaration of war - not some pussy authorization of force - against the terrorist groups and where applicable their enabling governments, then these people listed as among recognized enemy combatants. But until then I support the President completely in using his discretion to protect the country from its sworn enemies, even if they happen to hold US citizenship.

You support the president being able to use his discretion to kill US citizens and in doing so you support the usurpation of the Bill of Rights by a single man. Is that really the side you want to be on?

 

[Darwin333]

To those rabidly against this - where do you draw the line? If he's standing next to Osama bin Ladin, do you strike, or does this man's right to due process prohibit harming him? If you want to hit a meeting of al Qaeda leadership, must you first verify that he is definitely not attending? If he is participating in an attack, can he be shot, or must he be captured and Mirandized? If your preference is for America to lose and just go home, just say so, but otherwise I'm assuming that most of you do want to defeat al Qaeda and avoid a second 9/11-size attack, so I'm curious as to exactly how far this man's bubble of sanctity extends.

Nope, you are moving to the absurd side now. Killing someone in the process of hitting an enemy target is one thing. That is called collateral damage and while horrible, it is war. Ordering the assassination of a United States citizen who has not been charged with a crime is completely different . One can be put in the "shit happens" category, the other is an intentional act that is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[Darwin333]

Can you try someone in the US without them present?

Pretty sure you can't try anyone without charging them with a crime first.

 

[ebaycj]

Can you try someone in the US without them present?

I believe that they have the right to face their accuser.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

We live in a nation of educated idiots, and the political landscape reflects that unfortunate truth.

QFT (unfortunately)

 

[nyker96]

CNN link

I don't know how anyone could think this is a good idea, but Obama and the DoJ is invoking the state secrets privilege to get a lawsuit thrown out.

If this privilege is upheld, that means that the President will have unilateral authority to execute any US citizen without any due process.

The current lawsuit is about the ability of the President to basically put a US citizen on an execution list without any oversight. So if upheld, anyone that gets unilaterally sentenced to death (which is what the execution list basically is) will not be able to challenge his/her inclusion on the list.

Disgusting. And how anyone thinks Obama is a liberal socialist while doing this is crazy too.

well I think he's doing what Bush has started, expanding the power of executive branch. Republicans have been pushing years for this, they will love him now ... or maybe not.

 

[nobodyknows]

Nope, you are moving to the absurd side now. Killing someone in the process of hitting an enemy target is one thing. That is called collateral damage and while horrible, it is war. Ordering the assassination of a United States citizen who has not been charged with a crime is completely different . One can be put in the "shit happens" category, the other is an intentional act that is clearly unconstitutional.

If he hadn't renounced his citizenship I would agree with you. But he has and is actively trying to kill other US citizens, so too bad, so sad. I say shoot the mofo first chance they get.

 

[OutHouse]

If he hadn't renounced his citizenship I would agree with you. But he has and is actively trying to kill other US citizens, so too bad, so sad. I say shoot the mofo first chance they get.

I have been looking for any link or news story about him renouncing his citizenship and have come up blank. do you have one to share?

from my post at the bottom of page 3, even if he hasn't renounced his citizenship i think the DoJ still has enough against him to take away his citizenship.

3. Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country if those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US , or if the person serves as an officer;

 

[Fern]

-snip-
3. Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country if those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US , or if the person serves as an officer;

If he's doing that, and it sounds like he is, they can kill him w/o a trial.

A lot of Confederate solidiers were killed back in the day, no trial was needed to kill them.

Fern

 

[nobodyknows]

I have been looking for any link or news story about him renouncing his citizenship and have come up blank. do you have one to share?

from my post at the bottom of page 3, even if he hasn't renounced his citizenship i think the DoJ still has enough against him to take away his citizenship.

3. Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country if those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US , or if the person serves as an officer;

Sorry, but no. He obviously doesn't consider himself a US citizen though.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...tizens_dead_is_targeted_by_cia_for_assas.html

U.S. civilians are fair game, the Las Cruces, N.M.-born terrorist explained, because they vote in elections for leaders who make war on Muslims.