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 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54

Thread: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

  1. #31
    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
    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.
    There are certainly conditions under which people may defend themselves. If someone is trying to take a shot at the President...yes by all means react to that. I wouldn't say it would necessarily be treason if you're protecting yourself. If not directly threatened, however, we must uphold due process and habeas corpus. As you say, we are innocent until proven guilty. You can't just say "we suspect he's working with terrorists" and drop a bomb on him. You have to be able to prove in a court of law that he had done so and he must be afforded defense.
    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. #32
    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
    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.
    The Defense of Marriage Act, which was a law, amended the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution; so it seems like the power exists (whether it is there legally or not is another issue). But yes, what I would define as Treason by State is not in the Constitution, nor could you just make a law (not like government would ever impose a law like that upon itself) to do so. It would be "law" written by the People, i.e. an amendment to the Constitution to lay out what would be deemed treason of state.

    Regardless, in the end it seems like we need extra protection against the force of government. They aren't really allowed to just assassinate citizens without due process of law; yet they do. Thus there should be a mechanism that imposes punishments on government when government violates their oath to the Constitution and thus to the People in such gross manners.
    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."

  3. #33
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There are certainly conditions under which people may defend themselves. If someone is trying to take a shot at the President...yes by all means react to that. I wouldn't say it would necessarily be treason if you're protecting yourself. If not directly threatened, however, we must uphold due process and habeas corpus. As you say, we are innocent until proven guilty. You can't just say "we suspect he's working with terrorists" and drop a bomb on him. You have to be able to prove in a court of law that he had done so and he must be afforded defense.
    And as I said, in certain cases I don't think that should apply...just as is the case with almost every single solitary right granted by the Constitution. If you are on foriegn soil, giving no evidence what so ever of a willingness to return to the U.S. to stand trial, with solid and clear evidence (or possibly even open admittance) of a leadership position within an organization in declared war with the United States I have absolutely zero issue with the United States military treating you in an almost exact fashion as they would any other leader of an entity at war with the U.S., save for the fact that I would prefer that such attempts look for the oppertunity to detain if at all possible.

    Say what you want, but we all have our own different views of the founders intentions. If the Constitution existed prior to War with England, and a U.S. Soldier was a commander of one of the King's armies, there's no doubt in my mind that General Washington would treat that individual as he would treat any other military leader waging War against the United States.

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The Defense of Marriage Act, which was a law, amended the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution; so it seems like the power exists (whether it is there legally or not is another issue). But yes, what I would define as Treason by State is not in the Constitution, nor could you just make a law (not like government would ever impose a law like that upon itself) to do so. It would be "law" written by the People, i.e. an amendment to the Constitution to lay out what would be deemed treason of state.
    And here's why its not going to work.

    With all the idiotic hyperbolic sensationalistic "They're Assassinating American Citizens" screams and cries from some people, the REALITY of the situation when given the full amount of information is one that is likely to have significant support by "the people", meaning such an amendment wouldn't likely be swept through on the tide of what occured. Especially when the person spear heading the charge looks like a wild crazy old coot whose shouting about it as if its routine for the US to just head out onto the street and assassinate whoever they dislike.

  5. #35
    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?

    honestly, folks are talking like the Reichstag was burned again.

  6. #36
    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
    And as I said, in certain cases I don't think that should apply...just as is the case with almost every single solitary right granted by the Constitution. If you are on foriegn soil, giving no evidence what so ever of a willingness to return to the U.S. to stand trial, with solid and clear evidence (or possibly even open admittance) of a leadership position within an organization in declared war with the United States I have absolutely zero issue with the United States military treating you in an almost exact fashion as they would any other leader of an entity at war with the U.S., save for the fact that I would prefer that such attempts look for the oppertunity to detain if at all possible.

    Say what you want, but we all have our own different views of the founders intentions. If the Constitution existed prior to War with England, and a U.S. Soldier was a commander of one of the King's armies, there's no doubt in my mind that General Washington would treat that individual as he would treat any other military leader waging War against the United States.
    True, but the times now are not like they were when we were a fledgling nation fighting for survival. Besides, the Constitution didn't exist when Washington was fighting England.
    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. #37
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    True, but the times now are not like they were when we were a fledgling nation fighting for survival. Besides, the Constitution didn't exist when Washington was fighting England.
    Thus why I said "if the constitution was somehow in place before we went to war with england then...."

    And I don't think he wouldn't do it because we are a fledgling nation fighting for survival, I think he wouldn't do it because its an entirely seperate situation from what due process was meant for imho.

  8. #38
    Student Blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    05-21-17 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    218

    Re: Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    True, but the times now are not like they were when we were a fledgling nation fighting for survival. Besides, the Constitution didn't exist when Washington was fighting England.
    The Constitution may not have existed a decade earlier, but the principles informing it certainly did and good governance is good governance whether codified on a piece of paper or not.

    Sufficient provisions exist within current law to protect law-abiding citizens. The anti-PATRIOT Act hysteria is a cacophony of progressive anti-American strength and libertarian anti-government strength. Nothing more.

    These arguments remind me of the people who whine about police officers who shoot fleeing suspects because the suspect hadn't been convicted of anything. No innocent in their right mind would flee the police, particularly when they here "freeze!" Likewise, no American citizen who was not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, waging war against his homeland, would be caught associating or affiliating himself with terrorists or terrorist organizations.

  9. #39
    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
    And here's why its not going to work.

    With all the idiotic hyperbolic sensationalistic "They're Assassinating American Citizens" screams and cries from some people, the REALITY of the situation when given the full amount of information is one that is likely to have significant support by "the people", meaning such an amendment wouldn't likely be swept through on the tide of what occured. Especially when the person spear heading the charge looks like a wild crazy old coot whose shouting about it as if its routine for the US to just head out onto the street and assassinate whoever they dislike.
    Perchance it wouldn't succeed. But what mechanism, then, is in place which would prevent them from assassinating whomever they dislike? If we get enough popular support for rampant assassination, does it make it OK and proper for the government to do so? Is there oversight? Is there restriction? I believe that it is very important to uphold the Constitution and to have government functioning within its proper boundaries. The individual is give due process and we sustain habeas corpus, and while it can be suspended in general by the President in times of conflict, it has not been. Politicians swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution is quite clear on the purpose of government. They are most certainly not given broad assassination capabilities outside of declarations of war and writ of reprisals. Neither of which have been evoked.

    Treason is listed in the Constitution to define what the government can go after in terms of treason; but even then we must uphold due process. You can't suggest that it's ok and proper that the government can label someone as a terrorist or a traitor without trial or presenting evidence to a judge, and then go and bomb the guy. On some level there must be restriction to prevent abuse.
    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. #40
    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 Blackstone View Post
    These arguments remind me of the people who whine about police officers who shoot fleeing suspects because the suspect hadn't been convicted of anything. No innocent in their right mind would flee the police, particularly when they here "freeze!" Likewise, no American citizen who was not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, waging war against his homeland, would be caught associating or affiliating himself with terrorists or terrorist organizations.
    If an individual is non-threatening, the police cannot shoot them in the back. Saying "no innocent in their right mind would flee the police..." is not proper excuse for government force against right to life. You can use it as proof for resisting arrest; but that's hardly a death penalty worthy crime.
    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."

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •