• 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!

Kucinich Legislation Would End the Extrajudicial Killing of U.S. Citizens

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today that he will introduce legislation that would end the practice of targeting U.S. citizens for extrajudicial killing. Earlier this year, The Washington Post and The New York Times revealed that the Obama Administration was continuing the Bush-era policy of including U.S. citizens on lists of people to be assassinated without a trial. Kucinich has spoken out forcefully against revoking the basic constitutional rights of American citizens for simply being suspected of involvement with terrorism, and he is currently recruiting cosponsors for his bill. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Sometimes, in order to uphold Constitutional law, you must do things that are not popular, because it is the right thing to do. Before we assassinate other Americans, because they were put on a hit list. We need to examine the legality of it. Many are put on terrorist lists because they are suspected of being terrorists, without hard evidence. This flies in the face of the Constitution, where ALL Americans are presumed innocent, until found guilty by trial.

Yes, this is a controversial bill, but this is one of those rare instances where I agree with Kucinich. Why? Because I am an American, who loves his country and what it stands for.

Finally, to some on the very far right, who claim that Obama is Hitler - If Obama keeps doing what he is doing, then you guys just might be right. It is certainly an unamerican thing to do, and does take us back to a nefarious time in Germany, when operations like this were the modus operandi.

Article is here
.
 
Last edited:
This flies in the face of the Constitution, where ALL Americans are presumed innocent, until found guilty by trial.
Where does the Constitution say this?

Finally, to some on the very far right, who claim that Obama is Hitler - If Obama keeps doing what he is doing, then you guys just might be right.
I'll use this moment to ask The Omabanistas:
How's that "Hope" and "Change" working for you?
 
Where does the Constitution say this?
Good point - the Constitution doesn't say that.


So - just so I'm clear here.

Let's say Adam Gahdan is out and about and identified on the ground by the CIA. He's in a convoy of vehicles heading into a remote area known to be impenetrable area of Pakistan/Afghanistan border and will be out of striking distance in 10-15 minutes. This proposed law would state that since Gahdan is or was(?) a U.S. citizen, a predator strike on this Al Qaeda group of vehicles which would kill Gahdan would not be allowed and would be illegal.

We're not talking about Bill Apier, a former marine Vet from Indiana who owns his own trucking business for the past 20 years who was added to the terror list by mistake getting shot in the head by a CIA sniper while pumping gas in Toledo ...
 
Good point - the Constitution doesn't say that.
As we so very often hear - All rights have limits, no rights are absolute.
This must then include the right to trial.
We're not talking about Bill Apier, a former marine Vet from Indiana who owns his own trucking business for the past 20 years who was added to the terror list by mistake getting shot in the head by a CIA sniper while pumping gas in Toledo ...
Hey! That was me!
 
Where does the Constitution say this?


I'll use this moment to ask The Omabanistas:
How's that "Hope" and "Change" working for you?

Actually, the Constitution DOES say that.

1) Fifth Amendment - 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.

Except if one is in the military, and subject to military rules, no person is to be punished without an indictment.

Once indicted, we now go to the...........

2) Sixth Amendment - 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.

So, you see, the Constitution is explicit in that the accused cannot be punished without an indictment from a grand jury, and then a public trial, in which his guilt or innocence is determined. It also says that the accused cannot be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Therefore, the Constitution explicitly says that you cannot assassinate a citizen on suspicion of criminal activity. It's all there, in black and white. Period. End of discussion.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the Constitution DOES say that.

1) Fifth Amendment - 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.

Except if one is in the military, and subject to military rules, no person is to be punished without an indictment.

Once indicted, we now go to the...........

2) Sixth Amendment - 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.

So, you see, the Constitution is explicit in that the accused cannot be punished without an indictment from a grand jury, and then a public trial, in which his guilt or innocence is determined. It also says that the accused cannot be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Therefore, the Constitution explicitly says that you cannot assassinate a citizen on suspicion of criminal activity. It's all there, in black and white. Period. End of discussion.




United States Code: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | LII / Legal Information Institute




§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions


(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or


(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
 
So, you see, the Constitution is explicit in that the accused cannot be punished without an indictment from a grand jury, and then a public trial, in which his guilt or innocence is determined. It also says that the accused cannot be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Sadly for you, I didn't take issue with any of that.

I asked you where the Constitution states that there is a presumption of innocence. You have failed to provide a citation to that effect.

End of discussion.
 
United States Code: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | LII / Legal Information Institute




§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions


(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or


(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

And it MUST be proven that the person IS working for a foreign entity BEFOREHAND.
 
Sadly for you, I didn't take issue with any of that.

I asked you where the Constitution states that there is a presumption of innocence. You have failed to provide a citation to that effect.

End of discussion.

Actually not at all. Of course, there is a presumption of innocence, if the Constitution says that the accused MUST be charged, and there MUST be a trial, before the accused is deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Reading is fundamental.
 
In other words, according to you, we are allowed to assassinate American citizens on suspicion?




no d00d, I'm asking questions. :mrgreen:



I think, if we have him on tape/film whatever acting like the enemy... Then there can be cases in absentia...

Of course if he's caught in the commission of shooting at us, or trying to blow stuff up..... That absentia could be after he's achieved room tempurature from a few new orifices placed in and about his body from a few 5.56's :thumbs:
 
Actually not at all.
Actually, completely.

Presumption of innocence is not found anywhere in the Constitution, contrary to your assertion. If you disagree, you may cite the text.

Of course, there is a presumption of innocence, if the Constitution says that the accused MUST be charged, and there MUST be a trial, before the accused is deprived of life, liberty, or property.
None of these things necessitate a presumption of innocence -- each of them could be in place just as easily with the presumption of guilt.

Now, admit you made a mistake and move on.
 
Last edited:
Which U.S. Citizens have been assassinated without trial? Could we see a list?


And what is the difference between Extrajudicial Killing, Combat, and Assassination?
 
... as I've stated before, the right to a trial is contingent on compliance with the law. Just as police kill armed and dangerous people who will not comply with the order to surrender, so are U.S. citizens hiding among enemies of the United States incurring a risk of death. Obama has no obligation to leave these citizens alone, just because they have chosen to hide among terrorists, or to put Special Forces into mortal jeopardy in order to capture them and bring them in for trial.

The only way for Obama to be "Hitler" is if he orders these citizens to be killed after they try to surrender to him.
 
... as I've stated before, the right to a trial is contingent on compliance with the law. Just as police kill armed and dangerous people who will not comply with the order to surrender, so are U.S. citizens hiding among enemies of the United States incurring a risk of death. Obama has no obligation to leave these citizens alone, just because they have chosen to hide among terrorists, or to put Special Forces into mortal jeopardy in order to capture them and bring them in for trial.

The only way for Obama to be "Hitler" is if he orders these citizens to be killed after they try to surrender to him.

Wait, what? The right to trial only applies to people who haven't broken the law?
 
Wait, what? The right to trial only applies to people who haven't broken the law?

Bingo. You got it, by posing the right question. Let's see if someone can answer THAT - LOL. :)
 
Last edited:
Wait, could we get back to my questions first:

Which U.S. Citizens have been assassinated without trial? Could we see a list?


And what is the difference between Extrajudicial Killing, Combat, and Assassination?
 
Wait, what? The right to trial only applies to people who haven't broken the law?
That's not what he said. You are deliberately misunderstandding him,

Police reasoaobly often kill those that break the law w/o those pople being arrested, going to trial or being convicted. They do so because those people do not follow the instructions of the police so that they CAN be arrested, tried and (possibly) convicted.
 
Bingo. You got it, by posing the right question. Let's see if someone can answer THAT - LOL. :)
Got that Constitutional citation yet?
 
Sometimes, in order to uphold Constitutional law, you must do things that are not popular, because it is the right thing to do. Before we assassinate other Americans, because they were put on a hit list. We need to examine the legality of it. Many are put on terrorist lists because they are suspected of being terrorists, without hard evidence. This flies in the face of the Constitution, where ALL Americans are presumed innocent, until found guilty by trial.

Yes, this is a controversial bill, but this is one of those rare instances where I agree with Kucinich. Why? Because I am an American, who loves his country and what it stands for.

Finally, to some on the very far right, who claim that Obama is Hitler - If Obama keeps doing what he is doing, then you guys just might be right. It is certainly an unamerican thing to do, and does take us back to a nefarious time in Germany, when operations like this were the modus operandi.

Article is here
.

Well first of all let's get one thing perfectly clear Kucinich doesn't give a flying **** about the Constitution, he cares about the well being of suspected terrorists, that being said I support the amendment.
 
:waiting::waiting:

Which U.S. Citizens have been assassinated without trial? Could we see a list?


And what is the difference between Extrajudicial Killing, Combat, and Assassination?
 
Well first of all let's get one thing perfectly clear Kucinich doesn't give a flying **** about the Constitution, he cares about the well being of suspected terrorists, that being said I support the amendment.

Suspected terrorists or not, if they are US citizens, it is the duty of those enforcing the law and punishing criminals of anykind to make sure that any punishment is served only after proving they are criminals, especially with such a strong and heavily weighted charge like this.

Lets not dilute this the way the sex offender's list [and similar measures in that aspect] have been in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom