• 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!

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

Gander said:
Do you believe there is anything an American citizen can do to relinquish their Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

Nothing that applies to this situation, no.



Gander said:
But not in matters of warfare.
Click to expand...

The Constitution supersedes any treaty which contradicts it in any way, at least the contradictory portions of the treaty in question.

In other words, no treaty can ever supersede the Constitution without an Amendment stating such.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It absolutely is the Constitution, which is why it is listed first, and not third, in Article VI.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. Treaties made under the authority of the US government are "the supreme law of the land" per Article VI.

The supremacy is implicit at first, because otherwise federal laws which are judged unConstitutional could not be struck down by the courts.

The supremacy becomes explicit later in the Article, since it says judges are not bound by treaties in any instance where said treaties contradict the Constitution or federal law.
Click to expand...

I'll concede this point.

5th Amendment. The government cannot deny a citizen of the United States of life, liberty or property without due process.
Click to expand...

The Fifth Amendment makes a specific exception for "cases arising in the land or naval forces".
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If I plan to walk into a building and mow down everyone in sight, and the feds caught wind of my plan, I'd be up on charges of conspiracy -- not killed on sight.

I see no reason why this man, even if he in fact is planning to kill Americans, should be treated any different.
Click to expand...

Because he is an unlawful enemy combatant.
 
Gander said:
The Fifth Amendment makes a specific exception for "cases arising in the land or naval forces".
Click to expand...

Specific with reference to the requirement for an indictment prior to a trial on a capital offense.

Additionally, the prohibition against stripping life, liberty or property without due process proceeds that initial statement, which makes it clear that due process is still required.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Nothing that applies to this situation, no.
Click to expand...

I didn't make such a qualification. I want to know if you think there is anything a US citizen can do to relinquish their Constitutional rights.

The Constitution supersedes any treaty which contradicts it in any way, at least the contradictory portions of the treaty in question.

In other words, no treaty can ever supersede the Constitution without an Amendment stating such.
Click to expand...

There is no contradiction.
 
Gander said:
I didn't make such a qualification. I want to know if you think there is anything a US citizen can do to relinquish their Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

I suppose some rights could be relinquished either by forswearing citizenship, or signing on with a foreign government's military in a time of war, stuff like that. I'm really not familiar with the circumstances under which one can legitimately give up or lose citizenship in the United States.

All the same, some Constitutional rights are guaranteed to persons rather than citizens -- like those secured by the 5th Amendment. :mrgreen:

Gander said:
There is no contradiction.
Click to expand...

So there's nothing in the Laws of War which violate his 5th Amendment rights?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Specific with reference to the requirement for an indictment prior to a trial on a capital offense.

Additionally, the prohibition against stripping life, liberty or property without due process proceeds that initial statement, which makes it clear that due process is still required.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? It clearly says...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...
 
I'd also like to know why the following portion of Article I, Section 9:

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.
Click to expand...

. . . doesn't apply, seeing as how martial law hasn't been declared and the courts are all operating normally.

That's two places in the Constitution that require some form of due process.

How about Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Click to expand...

That's three places.

Come on!
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I suppose some rights could be relinquished either by forswearing citizenship, or signing on with a foreign government's military in a time of war, stuff like that. I'm really not familiar with the circumstances under which one can legitimately give up or lose citizenship in the United States.
Click to expand...

AQ is a military entity which has declared war on the US. Why should it matter that they aren't a nation-state?

All the same, some Constitutional rights are guaranteed to persons rather than citizens -- like those secured by the 5th Amendment. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Except in cases arising from the land or naval forces.

So there's nothing in the Laws of War which violate his 5th Amendment rights?
Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of, no.
 
Gander said:
What are you talking about? It clearly says...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...
Click to expand...

You conveniently truncated your quotation:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

Let me break it down for you.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Click to expand...

In other words, you can't be tried for a capital "or otherwise infamous crime" without an indictment, except in those cases specifically stated.

It doesn't say you won't be tried, it just says an indictment isn't necessary.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

This portion is a separate statement, not a continuation of the first statement. We know this both because the exception follows the mention of being held to answer for capital offenses, rather than being tacked onto the end of the Amendment, and because, well, it's punctuated that way.

As such, your interpretation is not correct.
 
Gander said:
AQ is a military entity which has declared war on the US. Why should it matter that they aren't a nation-state?
Click to expand...

Because they can call it whatever they want, but war is declared by nations, not by groups of men without a patch of land to call home or a uniform to wear or a flag to wave.

In the case of AQ, it's conspiracy to do any number of felonious things, but not war.
 
Does anybody here realize what it means if we decide that stateless organizations can declare war on the United States?

It means that if the government wants to strip you of your rights, all it has to do is decice that you're an unlawful enemy combatant, or making war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or any number of similarly seditious accusations, and then treat you as if you had no rights to speak of.

If a single man in posession of a soviergn patch of land (his own country) attacks people living on another soviergn patch of land (another country), it's war.

If a single man lacking posesson of a soviergn patch of land attacks people living on a soviergn patch of land, he has comitted crimes against the laws of that soviergn patch of land, and is a criminal.

Why is everybody so quick to throw that distinction away?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You conveniently truncated your quotation:



Let me break it down for you.



In other words, you can't be tried for a capital "or otherwise infamous crime" without an indictment, except in those cases specifically stated.

It doesn't say you won't be tried, it just says an indictment isn't necessary.

To continue:



This portion is a separate statement, not a continuation of the first statement. We know this both because the exception follows the mention of being held to answer for capital offenses, rather than being tacked onto the end of the Amendment, and because, well, it's punctuated that way.

As such, your interpretation is not correct.
Click to expand...

It also says "crime" and "criminal case", which obviously doesn't apply to warfare.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Because they can call it whatever they want, but war is declared by nations, not by groups of men without a patch of land to call home or a uniform to wear or a flag to wave.

In the case of AQ, it's conspiracy to do any number of felonious things, but not war.
Click to expand...

War can be declared by any group of people; tribes in Africa have warred with one another since the beginning of human history.

Ultimately, a nation-state is just a nominal social entity surrounded by invisible and arbitrary lines; it exists only in the abstract. Not to mention the fact that the Geneva Conventions do not limit warfare to nation-states.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
His citizenship means he has Constitutional rights which cannot be denied without due process.

It doesn't say "unless he's a really scary angry guy who wants to kill us."
Click to expand...

He could be tried in absentia.
 
Last edited:
Gander said:
You asked: How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?

Your question presupposes that unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) are entitled to a trial, which they are not. Article Six of the Constitution incorporates treaties made under the authority of the US government and gives them the full force of law; in this case, the Geneva Conventions, and not the Fifth Amendment, would be the relevant legal text in determining the status of the Cleric.
Click to expand...

There is no such designation in the GCs.
 
ptif219 said:
Then why spend money on trials just kill all the ones in custody. Unless it is only US citizens we kill
Click to expand...

ptif219 said:
So kill US citizens and give foreign terrorist a trial. How many in Gitmo surrendered?
Click to expand...

*Sigh*
Look it's this simple. The relevant sections of the GC that apply to those in Gitmo do not apply to this guy.

Why?

Because he is currently not in US custody.

Until he is, you are free to kill the snot out of him if he is a legitimate target. However if arrested things get complicated.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It means that if the government wants to strip you of your rights, all it has to do is decice that you're an unlawful enemy combatant, or making war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or any number of similarly seditious accusations, and then treat you as if you had no rights to speak of.?
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your entries on this issue in relation to individual rights I only disagree in this one instance this one man because the facts are against him. Your above points are very valid and agreeable and we should be weary of such violations of our rights.
But in response to your above statement I do have to say you are talking about future desires of government? I see it differently those rights have long came and went since 9/11 and the activation of the patriot act. Those things already happen to American citizens. Great post but we are a little to late to understand it in terms of already established government. We can change direction but only if people like you continue to persist heavily in pointing out the flaws of such ideologies and legislations.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If the President derives his authority to hunt down this cleric from the Constitution, then as a citizen of the United States this cleric enjoys the protections afforded any citizen by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If that cleric left the country and sided with out enemies then it is pretty clear that man is no longer an American,therefore he should be treated no different than any other foreign terrorist that our troops can not easily get to.If he wanted to be treated as an American then perhaps he should not have left the country. I do not want troops risking their lives just to arrest the traitor.
 
Last edited:
Gander said:
War can be declared by any group of people; tribes in Africa have warred with one another since the beginning of human history.
Click to expand...

Those tribes occupy territory, which they control each amongst themselves.

War is essentially about grabbing land and the things in and on the land.

Gander said:
Ultimately, a nation-state is just a nominal social entity surrounded by invisible and arbitrary lines
Click to expand...

On its own soviergn piece of land.

Gander said:
it exists only in the abstract
Click to expand...

On its own soviergn piece of land.

Gander said:
Not to mention the fact that the Geneva Conventions do not limit warfare to nation-states.
Click to expand...

I think the people who wrote those Conventions, like the people who wrote the Constitution, figured that war was so obviously the province of nation-states that it just didn't bear repeating.
 
thoughtprocess said:
I agree with most of your entries on this issue in relation to individual rights I only disagree in this one instance this one man because the facts are against him.
Click to expand...

I do not trust in any way any of the "facts" presented about this man.

We have courts of law and swear oaths to tell the truth when giving testimony and evidence in them for a reason -- it lends gravity to the proceedings, and there is a very real penalty for deception.

Politicians and functionaries and bureaucrats lie all the time to save their own ass because quite often there are no palpable consequences for lying if you're not under oath when you do it.

Furthermore, judges are supposed to be non-political referees when it comes to the giving and examining of evidence in a courtroom. When it's the President's men presenting "facts" to the press, there are no such impartial referees.

thoughtprocess said:
But in response to your above statement I do have to say you are talking about future desires of government? I see it differently those rights have long came and went since 9/11 and the activation of the patriot act. Those things already happen to American citizens.
Click to expand...

When I see things like this in the news, I feel compelled to argue against them, if nothing else so that maybe a few people will consider my words and not complacently accept the government's authority to do whatever it feels like doing.
 
jamesrage said:
If that cleric left the country and sided with out enemies then it is pretty clear that man is no longer an American
Click to expand...

If it's that clear-cut, then a courtroom proceeding should go swiftly and find in the government's favor, which means there's no valid reason for them to avoid doing this the right way.

jamesrage said:
I do not want troops risking their lives just to arrest the traitor.
Click to expand...

I thought that our troops signed up voluntarily to risk their lives for truth, justice, and the American way.

What could possibly be more American than respecting the lofty ideals upon which this nation was founded, no matter how dirty the deed done to us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom