View Poll Results: Obama says targeting citizens for wiretapping and assassination is ok. Do you agree?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • I support wiretapping, but not killing US citizens outside of due process

    1 2.44%
  • I opposed wiretapping when Bush did it and when Obama does it. Assassinations are even worse!

    12 29.27%
  • If you are an enemy of the US, citizenship doesn't matter. Kill em all

    23 56.10%
  • I opposed wiretapping when Bush did it, but it is ok now. So are assassinations.

    0 0%
  • Other, explain

    5 12.20%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

  1. #21
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Agree with the exception of someone in the processes of committing a crime who cannot safely be compelled to surrender (i.e. badguy aiming a gun at a cop or other civilian can be taken down by the authorities on site without a court order).
    Well there's always that, right. It's not to say that if someone pulls a gun on the cops, the cops can't shoot back. But in general, violating due process and habeas corpus should pretty much be considered treason when the life of law enforcement is not directly threatened.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    ...But in general, violating due process and habeas corpus should pretty much be considered treason when the life of law enforcement is not directly threatened.
    see above. we don't have the right to re-write the Constitution to fit our ideological needs of the day.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    01-09-12 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,014

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Ya' gotta' draw the line somewhere and it should start (at least) in/on a private conversation. Assassinations...hey if we can't assassinate anyone, why should the government get away with it? A "license to kill" is a punch line for a movie, not a constitutional right of the government.

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    On foreign or U.S. soil, if you're in the act of waging war against the U.S., and in the line of duty to protect themselves, agents of the government, such as the military, happening to kill a Citizen does not pose an issue to me. No more than if a copy shoots and kills a bank robber whose in the process of robbing the bank and is threatening people with a gun.

    On U.S. soil, outside of the above situation, the attempt should be to arrest...not kill...an individual intimately involved in a significant position within an organization waging war against the U.S.

    On foreign soil, outside of the above situation, I do not have issues with the U.S. military treating said individual as they would any other militaristic target if that individual is in a strategic position within an entity at war with the U.S.

    What I mean by that is....would we normally launch a special forces stirke force to go after random al-qaeda grunt #2458? No? Then its not okay to do such a thing if random Al-Qaeda grunt #2459 is a U.S. citizen. However, if we would normally do a special strike force attack on random high up AQ leader #6 in Afghanistan, then I have no issue doing the same thing if random high up AQ leader #5 is a U.S. Citizen.

    If you've assumed a leadership position, outside of this nation, with an entity indisputably engaged in war with the United States you should not be granted the privledge of being able to pose a greater harm to the United States and its population by being essentially untouchable. IF apprehension in such a strike is possible, then that should be the first option, but I have no issue with the result being death in such a strike if capture is not a reasonable probability without significantly raising the threat to the lives of our soldiers.

    We are innocent until proven guilty, yet if someone was taking a shot at the President I'd have no issue with a secret service member unloading 8 rounds into the guys chest long before there's any trial "proving" his guilt. I see having an active leadership type of position, outside of the country, with an organization that is unquestionably at war with our government as being on a very similar level.

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Breaking the Constitution is treason.
    Are you speaking in a legal sense of fact, or a generalized sense of opinion?

  6. #26
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by coolwalker View Post
    Ya' gotta' draw the line somewhere and it should start (at least) in/on a private conversation. Assassinations...hey if we can't assassinate anyone, why should the government get away with it? A "license to kill" is a punch line for a movie, not a constitutional right of the government.
    The government does have a Constitutionally granted "license to kill" called writ of reprisal. Though I am unsure as to whether that can legitimately be levied on US citizens. Regardless, we didn't use it. The politicians when they take office swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Severe undermining of that oath, such as the subversion of due process and habeas corpus, is clearly a violation of that oath and should be considered an act of treason against the Constitution and against the People.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Severe undermining of that oath, such as the subversion of due process and habeas corpus, is clearly a violation of that oath and should be considered an act of treason against the Constitution and against the People.
    So you believe we should pass a constitutional amendment to alter the constitutional definition of treason?

  8. #28
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Are you speaking in a legal sense of fact, or a generalized sense of opinion?
    Legally is there such a thing as treason committed by the State? Not sure there is, the Constitution defines treason such that it limits what the government can call treason against our own people. But violations of oaths of office should not be taken any more lightly than an individual acting against the United States. The purpose of the government is to uphold our rights, secure the blessings of freedom and liberty for ourselves and for posterity. To so grossly violate that purpose and the oaths the politicians take when they take office should be considered treason against the People.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #29
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So you believe we should pass a constitutional amendment to alter the constitutional definition of treason?
    That would have to be done very carefully. One thing you'd really have to avoid is political witch hunts. Or there should be some oversight, even if we don't call it treason or tyranny (which is what I would say it is), such that gross violations of oath of office can result in being removed from office.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Legally is there such a thing as treason committed by the State? Not sure there is, the Constitution defines treason such that it limits what the government can call treason against our own people. But violations of oaths of office should not be taken any more lightly than an individual acting against the United States. The purpose of the government is to uphold our rights, secure the blessings of freedom and liberty for ourselves and for posterity. To so grossly violate that purpose and the oaths the politicians take when they take office should be considered treason against the People.
    Unfortunately your argument has no constitutional basis in regards to how it lays out our government should function. What you're calling for is the government to enact laws and restrictions that are not granted to them to make by the constitution. I'm pretty sure you can't just pass a law, rather than an amendment, to completely change the definition of anything else in the constitution so I see no reason why it should be constitutional to do such with the definition of treason.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •