• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top national security lawyers in the Obama administration say U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.
The lawyers were asked at a national security conference Thursday about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.
Click to expand...

News from The Associated Press There you go, I can agree with this. You take up arms with the enemy, you can die with them like the scum you are.
 
MrVicchio said:
News from The Associated Press There you go, I can agree with this. You take up arms with the enemy, you can die with them like the scum you are.
Click to expand...

I disagree. An accusation is not a conviction, and Americans should never be put to death without a trial and a conviction. It's in our own damn Constitution, which says that, before you take life or liberty from someone, you have to PROVE HIM GUILTY in a court of law, by his own peers. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the American way. Assassination makes us no better than Iran.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
I disagree. An accusation is not a conviction, and Americans should never be put to death without a trial and a conviction. It's in our own damn Constitution, which says that, before you take life or liberty from someone, you have to PROVE HIM GUILTY in a court of law, by his own peers. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the American way. Assassination makes us no better than Iran.
Click to expand...
Huh uh. How you gonna arrest a guy in the middle of a battlefield firing at US Soldiers. "Sorry Billy, your Dad died trying to arrest a man because we couldn't kill him, it would violate his rights."

Get over it, you take up arms against this country, guess what, you lose your rights. That's how it works bub.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. An accusation is not a conviction, and Americans should never be put to death without a trial and a conviction. It's in our own damn Constitution, which says that, before you take life or liberty from someone, you have to PROVE HIM GUILTY in a court of law, by his own peers. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the American way. Assassination makes us no better than Iran.
Click to expand...

I agree, IF THE PERSON IS SOMEHOW TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. Otherwise if a Marine or soldier shoots him in battle, that's just the way it goes.
 
What if the citizen is aiding Al Qaeda from within the U.S. indirectly? Do they lose their habeas corpus rights because they're an "enemy combattant"?

I hope it applies to combattants on foreign soil only, and even then, if they can capture them there should still be an obligation to uphold the constitution for citizens.
 
Al Qa'ida isn't a threat to anyone except Pakistani farmers. Anyone that thinks otherwise is completely delusional.

What the Obama administration (and congress) are saying is that if you are deemed to be an enemy by the government that they can do whatever they want with you - arrest you, detain you, kill you - regardless of whether or not you are an American citizen. Anyone that supports this blatant trashing of citizen rights is crazy and disgusting.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. An accusation is not a conviction, and Americans should never be put to death without a trial and a conviction. It's in our own damn Constitution, which says that, before you take life or liberty from someone, you have to PROVE HIM GUILTY in a court of law, by his own peers. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the American way. Assassination makes us no better than Iran.
Click to expand...

Quite correct. I'm still amazed how easily some want to abandon rule of law.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. An accusation is not a conviction, and Americans should never be put to death without a trial and a conviction. It's in our own damn Constitution, which says that, before you take life or liberty from someone, you have to PROVE HIM GUILTY in a court of law, by his own peers. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the American way. Assassination makes us no better than Iran.
Click to expand...

John Walker Lin should have been excuted in Afghanistan.
 
The courts are going to kick Obama's ass so far on this one not even Robert Ballard will be able to find it.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Al Qa'ida isn't a threat to anyone except Pakistani farmers. Anyone that thinks otherwise is completely delusional.

What the Obama administration (and congress) are saying is that if you are deemed to be an enemy by the government that they can do whatever they want with you - arrest you, detain you, kill you - regardless of whether or not you are an American citizen. Anyone that supports this blatant trashing of citizen rights is crazy and disgusting.
Click to expand...

It may not be a matter of supporting it. The job of the people is to stay informed on upcoming laws such as this, and they do it with the help of the press. Because the press never reports on these laws and citizens have become lazy, the government gets to usurp more and more power each day.

Our government is becoming more and more tyrannical and they are doing it in such sneaky ways.
 
Temporal said:
It may not be a matter of supporting it. The job of the people is to stay informed on upcoming laws such as this, and they do it with the help of the press. Because the press never reports on these laws and citizens have become lazy, the government gets to usurp more and more power each day.
Click to expand...

1. The press never reports on these laws because they are in bed with the government. Freedom of the press no longer exists because such freedoms are controlled and limited through other mechanisms than outright banning. The control of information flow is as effective as imposing a government censor.
2. Many decisions that affect the lives of citizens are made behind closed doors.
 
Temporal said:
What if the citizen is aiding Al Qaeda from within the U.S. indirectly? Do they lose their habeas corpus rights because they're an "enemy combattant"?

I hope it applies to combattants on foreign soil only, and even then, if they can capture them there should still be an obligation to uphold the constitution for citizens.
Click to expand...

If you are actively trying to do harm to Americans, our troops or our interest, you deserve to be shot and killed. You really think if an American is firing on a group of Marines, or even American citizens the right thing to do is to worry about his rights? That makes no sense. You protect the innocent before you protect the guilty.
 
muciti said:
If you are actively trying to do harm to Americans, our troops or our interest, you deserve to be shot and killed. You really think if an American is firing on a group of Marines, or even American citizens the right thing to do is to worry about his rights? That makes no sense. You protect the innocent before you protect the guilty.
Click to expand...

I kinda agree with this. At the same time, many of the folks classified as criminals are actively trying to "do harm to Americans" as well - this includes Americans who steal from other Americans, Americans who kill other Americans, and Americans who break into other Americans' homes. Why do they have rights?

What's the dividing line between a criminal and a combatant? Our justice system treated Tim McVeigh more as the former than the latter.
 
active to me implies that they are in the act of causing harm to Americans. So there is a difference between someone who has killed Americans, and is trying to kill Americans. If the police or military are pursuing someone who has harmed Americans but is not in the act of trying to kill Americans then there is no need for them to use lethal force. But if someone is a threat to the lives of those men and women pursuing them or innocent people nearby then lethal force is not only warranted but should be expected.
 
muciti said:
active to me implies that they are in the act of causing harm to Americans.
Click to expand...

If someone is firing at a someone and the only way to stop them is to fire back, nobody is going to complain. It happens nearly every single day.

So there is a difference between someone who has killed Americans, and is trying to kill Americans. If the police or military are pursuing someone who has harmed Americans but is not in the act of trying to kill Americans then there is no need for them to use lethal force. But if someone is a threat to the lives of those men and women pursuing them or innocent people nearby then lethal force is not only warranted but should be expected.
Click to expand...

For someone simply being "accused" of say plotting to kill Americans, they have constitutional rights that say we can not simply go off and kill them.
 
If someone is a combatant, that person is a legitimate military objective. Citizenship does not change that. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Laws of War confer special status on combatants based on their citizenship.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If someone is a combatant, that person is a legitimate military objective. Citizenship does not change that. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Laws of War confer special status on combatants based on their citizenship.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Still, the line can be rather fuzzy.
 
Temporal said:
What if the citizen is aiding Al Qaeda from within the U.S. indirectly? Do they lose their habeas corpus rights because they're an "enemy combattant"?

I hope it applies to combattants on foreign soil only, and even then, if they can capture them there should still be an obligation to uphold the constitution for citizens.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the lawyers were talking about combatants on foreign soil, not individuals arrested in the U.S. nor captured combatants (who, at a minimum would enjoy certain rights as prisoners of war).
 
StillBallin75 said:
What's the dividing line between a criminal and a combatant? Our justice system treated Tim McVeigh more as the former than the latter.
Click to expand...

Whether one is contributing to what reasonably can be described as military operations, battlefield activity, etc. is the dividing line. In other words, if someone properly meets the definition of a civilian, that person is not a legitimate military objective.

McVeigh carried out an act of terrorism but was not involved with a military group (regular or irregular) that was waging combat against the U.S. Even if he had fled the U.S., the proper course of action would have been to seek his extradition. In contrast, the American-born Yemeni sheikh was engaged in command-and-control operations for Al Qaeda in Yemen, a number of which were directed against U.S. interests and allies, and was a legitimate military objective.
 
There has never been even an allegation that American had "taken arms" against the USA. A platitude was used to replace the actual reality. Was that American shooting at anyone? No. Any evidence even offered he ever had? No.

Rather, it is the question of if an American were to leave the USA and express pro-Al Qaeda statements can he therefore be assasinated? Specifically, he was a "preacher" preaching in favor of Al-Qaeda. Can an American be assasinated on a presidential order for preaching armed resistance against the United States? The Obama adminstrations says yes, that is a presidential authority.

I have yet to find in the Constitution where the President can issue a summary death warrant for anyone. If I'm mistaken, state how?
 
MrVicchio said:
News from The Associated Press There you go, I can agree with this. You take up arms with the enemy, you can die with them like the scum you are.
Click to expand...

I prefer that if the government is going to kill our own citizens, that it first perhaps make its case to the courts and PROVE the guilt of the individual in question.
 
muciti said:
If you are actively trying to do harm to Americans, our troops or our interest, you deserve to be shot and killed. You really think if an American is firing on a group of Marines, or even American citizens the right thing to do is to worry about his rights? That makes no sense. You protect the innocent before you protect the guilty.
Click to expand...

Yet guilt is established in a court of law, not outside of it. Now if some person was actively shooting at the Marines; ok the Marines can respond in kind. But that's a far cry from dropping a bomb on someone.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Whether one is contributing to what reasonably can be described as military operations, battlefield activity, etc. is the dividing line. In other words, if someone properly meets the definition of a civilian, that person is not a legitimate military objective.

McVeigh carried out an act of terrorism but was not involved with a military group (regular or irregular) that was waging combat against the U.S. Even if he had fled the U.S., the proper course of action would have been to seek his extradition. In contrast, the American-born Yemeni sheikh was engaged in command-and-control operations for Al Qaeda in Yemen, a number of which were directed against U.S. interests and allies, and was a legitimate military objective.
Click to expand...

I still don't think the line is all that clear. The only real substantive difference between McVeigh and Aulaqi in my mind, is that one happened to work for a terrorist network, while the other just happened to work alone (lone wolf style terrorist). I wonder if McVeigh had been part of a right-wing militia, if your evaluation would be any different.

I mean, even the Hutaree when they were planning attacks on local cops were afforded criminal rights when they were captured/arrested. I tend to agree with you that combatants lose their rights, but I still don't feel as if the separating line between criminal and combatant is really all that clear.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
News from The Associated Press There you go, I can agree with this. You take up arms with the enemy, you can die with them like the scum you are.
Click to expand...
And what is it that would stop the govt from saying you had done things you had not and summarily executing you?

If the government was trustable, it'd be different. But, as it is, it's made up of human beings.
 
MrVicchio said:
Huh uh. How you gonna arrest a guy in the middle of a battlefield firing at US Soldiers. "Sorry Billy, your Dad died trying to arrest a man because we couldn't kill him, it would violate his rights."
Get over it, you take up arms against this country, guess what, you lose your rights. That's how it works bub.
Click to expand...
al Qaeda fight on the battlefield?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom