• 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

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...
That's not really the issue, imho. The issue is whether we're willing to give the govt the ability to execute citizens w/o a trial.

I guess it boils down to how much you trust the government.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's not really the issue, imho. The issue is whether we're willing to give the govt the ability to execute citizens w/o a trial.

I guess it boils down to how much you trust the government.
Click to expand...

I think that this is a fair assessment. And how much does one trust the government? Me? Not very much at all. Government was never meant to be trusted. People of small government mindset tend to also hold that value. So is it worth expanding their power such that they can seemingly execute our own people without trial, without presenting proof, and at seemingly their discretion? No, not at all. People may want to say traitor this or treason that; but that needs to be proven in a court of law first. Without oversight, the system goes down the tubes.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's not really the issue, imho. The issue is whether we're willing to give the govt the ability to execute citizens w/o a trial.

I guess it boils down to how much you trust the government.
Click to expand...

If one trusts the government, then he should trust used car dealers too.
 
danarhea said:
If one trusts the government, then he should trust used car dealers too.
Click to expand...

Shady drug dealers are more trustworthy than the government. heheheh
 
Sooner of later the word "terrorist" will most likely be used to describe anyone who questions the governing class. It's such a vague term, and to use it so loosely can only set a negative precedent.
 
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...

Nope but the Constitution does confer special status to citizens.
 
Anwar al-Awlaki knew he was as US terrorist target, his father sued the US to stop the US from targeting him, and the courts ruled against him. Theses are facts that cannot be disputed.


So if Anwar al-Awlaki wanted the protection of US laws he could very simply have turned himself in and fought this out in our court system. He choose not to do this, that alone should tell most people something.


He wasn't killed in the US, he was killed in Yemen, a country that is “known” to harbor and breed terrorists. Anyone with any interest can look up Anwar al-Awlaki and see what his views were on the western world, and that he indeed portrayed “himself” as a terrorist. IMO his killing was justified and legal within our own legal system.
 
The Barbarian said:
Anwar al-Awlaki knew he was as US terrorist target, his father sued the US to stop the US from targeting him, and the courts ruled against him. Theses are facts that cannot be disputed.


So if Anwar al-Awlaki wanted the protection of US laws he could very simply have turned himself in and fought this out in our court system. He choose not to do this, that alone should tell most people something.


He wasn't killed in the US, he was killed in Yemen, a country that is “known” to harbor and breed terrorists. Anyone with any interest can look up Anwar al-Awlaki and see what his views were on the western world, and that he indeed portrayed “himself” as a terrorist. IMO his killing was justified and legal within our own legal system.
Click to expand...
Few problems with your post, first you're implying that the government has the right any U.S. citizen who flees from authorities. A complete overreach of power and a precursor for abuse of civil liberties. Secondly the country you flee to does not change your undeniable rights to a trial. And thirdly "Portraying himself as a terrorist" is a generality that can not be punishable by death without a trial.
 
The Barbarian said:
Anwar al-Awlaki knew he was as US terrorist target, his father sued the US to stop the US from targeting him, and the courts ruled against him. Theses are facts that cannot be disputed.
Click to expand...

The court ruled that his father had no standing to sue for him.

So if Anwar al-Awlaki wanted the protection of US laws he could very simply have turned himself in and fought this out in our court system. He choose not to do this, that alone should tell most people something.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that we should have just dropped a bomb on the head of George Wright.

He wasn't killed in the US, he was killed in Yemen, a country that is “known” to harbor and breed terrorists. Anyone with any interest can look up Anwar al-Awlaki and see what his views were on the western world, and that he indeed portrayed “himself” as a terrorist. IMO his killing was justified and legal within our own legal system.
Click to expand...

Our legal system once allowed a lot of things that were later ruled unconstitutional.
 
You folks need to review what "take up arms" means.

In a military action, things change. If take an M16 and start spraying the local hich school, should the cops try to arrest me, or put me down on the spot?

Now, if I get busted making PLANS to assist someone to spray a high school with an M16, obviously I shouldn't be shot on the spot, then it's an arrest.

But make no mistake, if you are firing on a soldier, they are going to fire back, and more often than not, their aim is better than yours.
 
QUOTE]1Perry;1059994268]The court ruled that his father had no standing to sue for him.[/QUOTE]

and this Judge Bates said the suit must be dismissed under the political question doctrine, which requires judges to step aside in issues that are best resolved by the elected, political branches of government.

Yeah, that we should have just dropped a bomb on the head of George Wright.
Click to expand...

So you compare Wright, that is already a convicted killer, and under arrest in another country with Anwar al-Awlaki???

Our legal system once allowed a lot of things that were later ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Okay ... so ? Are you saying then that we shouldn't enforce the existing laws ..... because 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 years from now "may be" ruled upon differently ?? Hell lets just go back to the code of survival of the fittest.

Wait ...wait ... are you suggesting we should bring Obama up on charges of murder ... . hey .. I might change my mind here ..
 
KevinKohler said:
You folks need to review what "take up arms" means.

In a military action, things change. If take an M16 and start spraying the local hich school, should the cops try to arrest me, or put me down on the spot?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many times in this thread it will have to be noted that nobody is argueing that.

Now, if I get busted making PLANS to assist someone to spray a high school with an M16, obviously I shouldn't be shot on the spot, then it's an arrest.

But make no mistake, if you are firing on a soldier, they are going to fire back, and more often than not, their aim is better than yours.
Click to expand...

Which nobody has a problem with.
 
The Barbarian said:
and this Judge Bates said the suit must be dismissed under the political question doctrine, which requires judges to step aside in issues that are best resolved by the elected, political branches of government.
Click to expand...

COnstitutional arguements are indeed the courts responsibility.

So you compare Wright, that is already a convicted killer, and under arrest in another country with Anwar al-Awlaki???
Click to expand...

If we knew he was hiding in a certain house, would you support us dropping a bomb on his head?

Okay ... so ? Are you saying then that we shouldn't enforce the existing laws ..... because 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 years from now "may be" ruled upon differently ?? Hell lets just go back to the code of survival of the fittest.

Wait ...wait ... are you suggesting we should bring Obama up on charges of murder ... . hey .. I might change my mind here ..
Click to expand...

I say it's ruled on within 2 years.
 
Let's say Billy Martin decides AQ has it right, converts to Islam, and joins the fight against the "great satan". Now, let's say we find out that a group of AQ are meeting at Salid's Goat Hut, to plot their next move. Billy, now Abdul of course, is with them and we know it.

The area is guarded, the simple answer is to drop a JDAM on their asses. To hear most of you, that would be depriving Billy aka Abdul his Constitutional Rights. Which leaves us in a quandary. Do you send in a team to arrest Billy aka Abdul and possibly others? Do you not make a move because the cost of going in with boots is too high?

HELL NO. You lob a few hundred pounds of high explosives, precision guided and wrapped in lots of shrapnel (that's bomb casing for you non-military types) and you handle business.

IF there is a point of contention I have with Obama on this, is his insistence that the Executive is ABOVE the courts, but that's a completely separate matter, altogether.
 
MrVicchio said:
Let's say Billy Martin decides AQ has it right, converts to Islam, and joins the fight against the "great satan". Now, let's say we find out that a group of AQ are meeting at Salid's Goat Hut, to plot their next move. Billy, now Abdul of course, is with them and we know it.

The area is guarded, the simple answer is to drop a JDAM on their asses. To hear most of you, that would be depriving Billy aka Abdul his Constitutional Rights. Which leaves us in a quandary. Do you send in a team to arrest Billy aka Abdul and possibly others? Do you not make a move because the cost of going in with boots is too high?

HELL NO. You lob a few hundred pounds of high explosives, precision guided and wrapped in lots of shrapnel (that's bomb casing for you non-military types) and you handle business.

IF there is a point of contention I have with Obama on this, is his insistence that the Executive is ABOVE the courts, but that's a completely separate matter, altogether.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that we have no rule of law for Billy? Taht we could not stop him, as we know, without destorying much property and maybe taking innocent lives? Or are you arguing we really need to be more like Iran or NK or China, as our way, the way of rule of law, is too sissy for us to believe in?
 
MrVicchio said:
Let's say Billy Martin decides AQ has it right, converts to Islam, and joins the fight against the "great satan". Now, let's say we find out that a group of AQ are meeting at Salid's Goat Hut, to plot their next move. Billy, now Abdul of course, is with them and we know it.

The area is guarded, the simple answer is to drop a JDAM on their asses. To hear most of you, that would be depriving Billy aka Abdul his Constitutional Rights. Which leaves us in a quandary. Do you send in a team to arrest Billy aka Abdul and possibly others? Do you not make a move because the cost of going in with boots is too high?
Click to expand...

No, but you can not issue an order to kill Billy without a trial. We have Constitutional protections such as free speech to use one example. The government can not infringe upon that right but that does not mean that there are never going to be any repercussions if you excersize that right.

If Obama visits your place of work and you yell out "Obama is a scum bag", Obama can not do a thing to you. Your company can though. If I decide to go visit the local Al-Queda bomb maker and the military decides to take him out, well, I made a bad decision. The government can not order that you be taken out though without a trial.

It may seem to some to not be much of a distinction, but it is.
 
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...

i would agree wholeheartedly with you about the battlefield scenario, mr. v, but the concern that activists have is that american citizens can be taken into custody on mere suspicion of terrorist plotting by the military with their right to habeus corpus suspended.

already there is outcry about the FBI literally generating their own terrorist plots to entrap people who were speaking out against america.

martin king, john kennedy and i'm sure a few others said that if you silence non-violent dissent, violent insurrection becomes inevitable. many people are concerned that this law will be used against more than armed and violent terrorists but against the sorts of people populating the occupations.
 
are you aware that these devices you are advocating for kill 100 civilians for every combatant?

some precision guidance they have.
 
WhistleBlower said:
i would agree wholeheartedly with you about the battlefield scenario, mr. v, but the concern that activists have is that american citizens can be taken into custody on mere suspicion of terrorist plotting by the military with their right to habeus corpus suspended.

already there is outcry about the FBI literally generating their own terrorist plots to entrap people who were speaking out against america.

martin king, john kennedy and i'm sure a few others said that if you silence non-violent dissent, violent insurrection becomes inevitable. many people are concerned that this law will be used against more than armed and violent terrorists but against the sorts of people populating the occupations.
Click to expand...

Activist tend to exaggerate things on a scale that make telemarketers look honest and politicians deacons of truth.
 
WhistleBlower said:
are you aware that these devices you are advocating for kill 100 civilians for every combatant?

some precision guidance they have.
Click to expand...

First, what a bull**** number, where'd you get from? /Boggle

Secondly, precision means we can hit the building we want to with ONE bomb rather then carpet bomb the entire town.
 
some do, true, but you dodge the issue with your ad hominem fallacy.

the fbi is already being accused of entrapping people and there is a nationwide outcry about the militarization of municipal police departments and the excessive force being used against non-violent acts of civil disobedience.

the war on terrorism, like any other war, only profits the manufacturers of the weapons and the people who finance them. i'm not willing to sacrifice my liberty on the altar of raytheon's bottom line.
 
the numbers are appalling. the targeting systems aren't anywhere near what faux news would like you to believe. i'll go see what turns out, but the drones aren't killing many combatants and a lot of kids are dying.
 
the first number was sort of pulled out of the air based on a report i saw in citizen's for legitimate government newsletter which was claiming that most of the people who were being called combatants were not. i've scolded the editor, lori price in the past for biased reporting and editorializing in news stories.

here's a report that's a bit more conservative, but the numbers are still bad.

Drone War Exposed – the complete picture of CIA strikes in Pakistan: TBIJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom