• 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!

Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

Obama says targeting citizens for wiretapping and assassination is ok. Do you agree?

  • I support wiretapping, but not killing US citizens outside of due process

    Votes: 1 7.1%

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

    Votes: 9 64.3%

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other, explain

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Total voters
    14
coolwalker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you believe we should pass a constitutional amendment to alter the constitutional definition of treason?
 
Zyphlin said:
Are you speaking in a legal sense of fact, or a generalized sense of opinion?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
So you believe we should pass a constitutional amendment to alter the constitutional definition of treason?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackstone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Due process", absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily mean a civilian trial. It just means following the laws that are in place. So long as Congress passes laws which govern the circumstances under which such activities may be carried out, the criteria which define those who would be vulnerable to such retribution, then due process has been followed. Of course, depending on how such things are defined by law, one might decide that too much leeway exists, or the definition of an acceptable target too broad. Such matters can be cured through subsequent legislation, however, and would not in themselves be just cause for doing away with the option in its entirety.
 
Dear US government, please stop raping the 4th Amendment. It is one of the things that makes us the good guys in this conflict. If we sacrifice what it means to be America in order to protect America, then we have not protected the country at all.
 
Blackstone said:
"Due process", absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily mean a civilian trial. It just means following the laws that are in place.
Click to expand...

To a degree. But that doesn't mean that the Congress can enact any law it wants, violate the rights of the individual, and call it due process. Due process is subjugated to the rights of the individual.
 
friday said:
This question is directed towards those who opposed wiretapping calls from US citizens to foreign terrorists under the Bush administration. Obama's lawyers have now declared that the United States will target US citizens if the executive branch considers those citizens to be at war with the United States. They also said that this decision must be made by the executive branch, not the courts.

Obama has continued and expanded Bush's wiretapping program in addition to expanding US involvement in foreign wars and failing to close Gitmo.

So after the intense level of anger and hatred for the Bush administration over wiretapping, here is the question: do you feel the same way about Obama?
Click to expand...

The issue isn't "wiretapping," it is WARRANTLESS wiretapping. And yes, I have a big problem with the president unilaterally deciding to wiretap someone because he deems them a terrorist. Who the hell is he to make that judgment? That's why we have a judicial branch.

As for killing American citizens on the battlefield, it's an unfortunate situation and should be avoided as much as possible. I think that it needs to be done with judicial oversight, if at all. As I see it, the president should have to prove three things to a judge: 1) The US citizen cannot be arrested or extradited by normal means, 2) The US citizen is guilty of a felony, 3) The US citizen is a continuing threat to national security.
 
I see it this way. There are three kinds of people we fight.

1. Legal enemy combatants. Uniformed soldiers who can demonstrate rank and serial number when captured and therefore fall under the Geneva conventions. They cannot be tried in civilian courts, but only in military courts if they have committed war crimes. They should be interrogated WITHOUT enhanced interrogation techniques and absolutely not with torture, and then held as POWs in a civil and respectful manner.

2. Illegal enemy combatants. Not wearing uniform, not acting as organized soldiers and not subject to the Geneva conventions. Really, they have no rights. However, I believe that the decency of America would require that we do not torture, but can use enhanced interrogation techniques. Such fighters should face military trial and appropriate punishment, including execution.

3. US Citizens turned enemy combatants. They have constitutional rights and due process. They should not be targeted without a warrant unless time is of the essence and the government has not had the time to identify them and pursue a proper warrant. A warrant should be sought after the fact with consequences if one is not justified. Every attempt for peaceful surrender of the US Citizen should be made, and force should only be used in the case of potentially lethal resistance. Once that citizen has been convicted in a civilian court of treason in accordance with due process, then they can be targeted even without the threat of imminent danger.
 
friday said:
I see it this way. There are three kinds of people we fight.

1. Legal enemy combatants. Uniformed soldiers who can demonstrate rank and serial number when captured and therefore fall under the Geneva conventions. They cannot be tried in civilian courts, but only in military courts if they have committed war crimes. They should be interrogated WITHOUT enhanced interrogation techniques and absolutely not with torture, and then held as POWs in a civil and respectful manner.

2. Illegal enemy combatants. Not wearing uniform, not acting as organized soldiers and not subject to the Geneva conventions. Really, they have no rights. However, I believe that the decency of America would require that we do not torture, but can use enhanced interrogation techniques. Such fighters should face military trial and appropriate punishment, including execution.
Click to expand...

There is no practical difference between #1 and #2. The only difference is cosmetic: that we Americans think that soldiers are supposed to wear nice uniforms and salute to superior officers. That's just not the way it works in much of the world.
 
Kandahar said:
There is no practical difference between #1 and #2. The only difference is cosmetic: that we Americans think that soldiers are supposed to wear nice uniforms and salute to superior officers. That's just not the way it works in much of the world.
Click to expand...

No, that's the Geneva conventions, not US law. It's one of the things that is designed to prevent terror tactics over conventional war tactics.
 
friday said:
No, that's the Geneva conventions, not US law. It's one of the things that is designed to prevent terror tactics over conventional war tactics.
Click to expand...

The Geneva Conventions was itself designed to appeal to American/European sensibilities in the aftermath of WWII. That's not to say that the things in it aren't valid, but some of it (like distinguishing between combatants who have a rank and uniform and serial number, and those who don't) are entirely ethnocentric. Those distinctions aren't very relevant to modern wars, and they never have been relevant in many parts of the world.
 
Kandahar said:
The Geneva Conventions was itself designed to appeal to American/European sensibilities in the aftermath of WWII. That's not to say that the things in it aren't valid, but some of it (like distinguishing between combatants who have a rank and uniform and serial number, and those who don't) are entirely ethnocentric. Those distinctions aren't very relevant to modern wars, and they never have been relevant in many parts of the world.
Click to expand...

Fine. When we rewrite the Geneva conventions to allow for terror tactics I'll change my position on the rule of law and categories of combatants.
 
friday said:
Fine. When we rewrite the Geneva conventions to allow for terror tactics I'll change my position on the rule of law and categories of combatants.
Click to expand...

What does wearing a uniform (or not) have to do with "terror tactics"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom