• 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

What would Batman do? Sneak in there and snatch that mutha f'r with Operation Sky hook. We should all be more like Batman. :p
While I'm certain that you base your entire opinions on figures like Batman, one must remember that he is operating in Gotham City, and with all due respect to the crazies of Gotham, he wouldn't survive a day in Yemen.
 
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?

The Geneva Conventions are part of the US Constitution and govern the conduct of warfare.
 
... Eugene Volokh, exploring in a Salon article the case of American gone al Qaeda adventurer John Walker, writes in 2001 that "8 U.S.C. § 1481 : US Code - Section 1481" may provide such a mechanism.

As Volokh then wrote pondering whether a terrorist could be stripped of his US citizenship:

Maybe. A federal statute says that a citizen loses his citizenship by "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States" but only if he does so "with the intention of relinquishing United States [citizenship]."




Stripping US Citizenship from Terrorists? - The Washington Note
 
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.

^^
This.

I think it's wrong for any government to order the execution of one of its citizens without due process. Wrong and scary.
 
^^
This.

I think it's wrong for any government to order the execution of one of its citizens without due process. Wrong and scary.
Scary to whom?
Who exactly should be scared from such a policy?

Certainly not the regular law-abiding citizen.
 
they are? which amendment?

Article Six: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution]Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Article Six incorporates all treaties made under the authority of the United States and gives them the force of law.
 
Article Six: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Article Six incorporates all treaties made under the authority of the United States and gives them the force of law.







I know that. :lol: It was a trick question. he claimed they were "part of the USC", they are not.
 
Current US law says that foreign military service will result in loss of US citizenship if the person served as an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) or the foreign military force is engaged in hostilities against the US; the service was voluntary; and (most importantly) the person intended to give up his US citizenship.

Current US policy goes further. Unless a dual citizen is serving in a "policy level position" in a foreign government, commits treason against the US (e.g., by fighting the US voluntarily during wartime), or acts in a manner considered totally inconsistent with any possible intent to keep US citizenship, the State Department is unlikely to take any action. Further, the current policy statement on foreign military service recognizes that dual citizens sometimes find themselves legally obligated to participate in the military forces of their other country of citizenship, and can do so in such situations without endangering their US status.
USCitizenship.info | Did you know?

It is up to the State Department to determine whether a US citizen's foreign military activities are in violation of US law. If such activities are indeed viewed as a violation, US citizenship can be stripped.
 
Scary to whom?
Who exactly should be scared from such a policy?

Certainly not the regular law-abiding citizen.

I'm a law-abiding citizen and if my government ever authorized something like this it would scare the crap out of me. I don't care what they've done, you DO NOT execute a citizen without due process. Either strip him of his citizenship and THEN kill him (although I'm pretty sure there's some kind of international law against that too) or abide by the law and the Constitution and grant him due process which he has a right to as a citizen.
 
I'm a law-abiding citizen and if my government ever authorized something like this it would scare the crap out of me. I don't care what they've done, you DO NOT execute a citizen without due process. Either strip him of his citizenship and THEN kill him (although I'm pretty sure there's some kind of international law against that too) or abide by the law and the Constitution and grant him due process which he has a right to as a citizen.
That's the policy when dealing with inactive threats, yes, but we're speaking about an active threat here.

And you shouldn't be scared of such policies unless you plan on engaging in terrorism against your own nation's people, which I wholeheartedly believe that you won't.
 
That's the policy when dealing with inactive threats, yes, but we're speaking about an active threat here.

Unless you catch him with a bomb strapped to his chest ready to blow himself up in a crowded mall, he is not an active threat.

And you shouldn't be scared of such policies unless you plan on engaging in terrorism against your own nation's people, which I wholeheartedly believe that you won't.

Any policy that strips even the worst of citizens of their constitutionally given rights without due process is wrong and not worthy of a civilized nation.
 
Unless you catch him with a bomb strapped to his chest ready to blow himself up in a crowded mall, he is not an active threat.
Osama bin-Laden was never caught with a bomb strapped to his chest ready to blow himself up in a crowded mall.

Your understanding of the meaning of "active threat" is very minimal, to say the least.
Any policy that strips even the worst of citizens of their constitutionally given rights without due process is wrong and not worthy of a civilized nation.
I disagree, a policy to remove active threats to the nation's people is a moral policy worthy of a civilized nation.
 
Osama bin-Laden was never caught with a bomb strapped to his chest ready to blow himself up in a crowded mall.

Your understanding of the meaning of "active threat" is very minimal, to say the least.
I disagree, a policy to remove active threats to the nation's people is a moral policy worthy of a civilized nation.

Say the country does something you absolutely disaprove of. (Im not saying it is a possability for you but whatever reason you could think of that would make you disaprove to the max) Whatever is abhorrent to you. And then you decide you cannot pay your taxes do to your morals or maybe even religous obligations. Would that make you qualify for the, "a manner considered totally inconsistent with any possible intent to keep US citizenship." under the right set of percieved people to be targeted with this law? And would that be fair if so?
 
Unless you catch him with a bomb strapped to his chest ready to blow himself up in a crowded mall, he is not an active threat.
I disagree strongly with you here. Anyone who plans, finances, facilitates, and assists in a terrorist act is an active participant.

The same legal principle applies in other unlawful acts... the getaway driver in a bank robbery is considered an active participant and is charged with bank robbery even though he never brandished a gun or set foot in the bank. If the robbers within the bank should kill someone, he is also charged with felony murder.

One need not actually strap on a suicide vest to be part and parcel of an unlawful and violent enterprise.
 
Osama bin-Laden was never caught with a bomb strapped to his chest ready to blow himself up in a crowded mall.

Your understanding of the meaning of "active threat" is very minimal, to say the least.

Osama Bin Laden has nothing to do with this discussion seeing as he's not a US citizen.

I disagree, a policy to remove active threats to the nation's people is a moral policy worthy of a civilized nation.

As long as due process is followed I have no problem with the removal of active threats.
 
I disagree strongly with you here. Anyone who plans, finances, facilitates, and assists in a terrorist act is an active participant.

The same legal principle applies in other unlawful acts... the getaway driver in a bank robbery is considered an active participant and is charged with bank robbery even though he never brandished a gun or set foot in the bank. If the robbers within the bank should kill someone, he is also charged with felony murder.

One need not actually strap on a suicide vest to be part and parcel of an unlawful and violent enterprise.

I understand that. But no cop in their right mind would shoot dead the driver waiting outside unless directly threatened. He would get arrested along with the others and put on trial.
 
When you take up arms against your country, you lose all citizen's rights.

It's the Donovan McNabb rule.

Then some of our local militias, and those who are screaming for their states to secede from the Union, need to keep that fact in mind.
 
One thing I don't get...

You're letting this guy know you're coming to kill him...

Think he's just gonna stay where he is and accept the approval?
 
Good luck trying to get him to attend a trial not strapped with a suicide vest.

He doesn't recognize the rule of law, so don't force him to abide by it. Just blow the mother-****er to Allah.
 
The man in question provides aid and contributes ideas which create situations for the demise of people just going about their day.

The man in question is accused of these crimes. They have yet to be proven.

We have already attacked this issue in regards to Hitler.

Hitler was not an American citizen, he was the head of a state the United States was at war with.

I understand your point and it makes complete sense. In fact you are right to protect Americans rights. But to say we will hunt and kill terrorist where ever they hide and then say this one guy we have to bring in alive is counter productive.

So because one President spoke foolishly, we should throw away the rule of law?

It is a slippery slope but there is evidence and thus fact so the fact remains that we will hunt and kill terrorist where ever they are.

If there is evidence and thus fact, the government's case should survive a jury with no difficulty.
 
Back
Top Bottom