• 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

I'm not saying the GOVT should be able to arbitrarily strip citizenship for any reason. But a terrorist who has plotted against the US can hardly expect sympathy.

But it then sounds as if that's exactly the argument you want to make. Because who designates "terrorist"? It's not us, it's the government. If you're saying that once designated a "terrorist", one shouldn't expect the protections of the Constitution; then you are saying it's up to the government to apply at their digression the namesake "terrorist" and once doing so remove themselves from the constraints and rules of the Constitution.
 
But it then sounds as if that's exactly the argument you want to make. Because who designates "terrorist"? It's not us, it's the government. If you're saying that once designated a "terrorist", one shouldn't expect the protections of the Constitution; then you are saying it's up to the government to apply at their digression the namesake "terrorist" and once doing so remove themselves from the constraints and rules of the Constitution.

I think you just blew my mind.
 
Does not matter what I believe. The point is Obama holds Muslim terrorist in a higher light then he does US citizens. Obama gives the foreign terrorist more rights than US citizens

Who would you feel stands a better chance in an American court an American citizen who speaks perfect English, and radicalized by a foreign religious ideology or a middle-eastern picked up in a hovel who speaks enough English to spew hatred in any tongue?


Think about it.
 
If I could follow what the hell you were talking about, I'd respond.

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

Your question presupposes that unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) are entitled to a trial, which they are not. Article Six of the Constitution incorporates treaties made under the authority of the US government and gives them the full force of law; in this case, the Geneva Conventions, and not the Fifth Amendment, would be the relevant legal text in determining the status of the Cleric.
 
That doesn't state that treaties are made a part of the Constitution.

What is "the supreme law of the land" if not the Constitution?

Also, did you notice that Article Six lists those three things in order of supremacy: Constitution, Laws of the United States, Treaties.

It makes no mention of importance or supremacy. It simply says that the Constitution, legislation, and treaties are "the supreme law of the land".

The quoted portion also clearly states that laws which contradict treaties supersede those treaties.

1. Where's the contradiction?

2. It makes no mention of superseding. It simply says judges will by bound by them, contrary laws notwithstanding.
 
Who would you feel stands a better chance in an American court an American citizen who speaks perfect English, and radicalized by a foreign religious ideology or a middle-eastern picked up in a hovel who speaks enough English to spew hatred in any tongue?


Think about it.

Does not matter. Why are citizens targeted for assassination while foreign terrorist get constitutional rights?
 
You asked: How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?

Your question presupposes that unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) are entitled to a trial, which they are not. Article Six of the Constitution incorporates treaties made under the authority of the US government and gives them the full force of law; in this case, the Geneva Conventions, and not the Fifth Amendment, would be the relevant legal text in determining the status of the Cleric.

Yet terrorist in Gitmo get trials
 
Yet terrorist in Gitmo get trials

And so will this terrorist if he isn't killed in the process of detaining him. Obama just made clear that it's fine if we have to kill him.
 
Here's how I see it...

He's an American citizen, just like the Hutaree militia weirdos, BUT he left the country with the intention of taking part in an active terror campaign against the United States. I believe the distinction between domestic terrorism (Hutaree) and foreign terrorism as part of a broad military campaign against the US is an important one.

For instance, suppose an American citizen left the country and became part of a foreign military which was actively engaged in hostilities against the United States. Would it be a violation of the Fifth Amendment to drop a bomb on his formation? I don't think anyone would argue that it is, nor do I think we would suggest he is still an American citizen.

This cleric is currently engaged in a military campaign against the United States, which means his status is appropriately determined by the Geneva Conventions. The relevant distinction is whether or not "warfare" is taking place.
 
Last edited:
Welp, Obama was teetering when it comes to my re-election vote. This seals it.

I certainly wont vote GOP or Tea Party soo.... I'm gonna go start my own party! With blackjack! And hookers!
 
Welp, Obama was teetering when it comes to my re-election vote. This seals it.

I certainly wont vote GOP or Tea Party soo.... I'm gonna go start my own party! With blackjack! And hookers!

Count me in man! I'll start the Canadian chapter.
 
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?

A citizen's right to a trial is contingent either on his cooperating or his being captured. If he doesn't cooperate, it is the prerogative of the executive branch whether to capture or kill him.

Does not matter. Why are citizens targeted for assassination while foreign terrorist get constitutional rights?

Lots of reasons. For example, most those foreign terrorists are easier to capture.
 
Last edited:
Do we allow the government to define when we are no longer citizens then?

I do not have the exact laws or regulation at hand but there are laws/rules which govern the loss of citizenship. I would take the practical approach in this case and render the so called "cleric" horizontal first and then sort out the constitutionality of the loss of citizenship of his "royal terroristship".
 
Does not matter. Why are citizens targeted for assassination while foreign terrorist get constitutional rights?


I would be for reading him his rights if he surrendered, but the fact is that he is a dangerous cleric who is hiding in a mountainous region and is surrounded by people who like to shoot Americans. Since when is it illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?
 
I would be for reading him his rights if he surrendered, but the fact is that he is a dangerous cleric who is hiding in a mountainous region and is surrounded by people who like to shoot Americans. Since when is it illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?

It is not "illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?"
in fact I think it is a duty.
 
I would be for reading him his rights if he surrendered, but the fact is that he is a dangerous cleric who is hiding in a mountainous region and is surrounded by people who like to shoot Americans. Since when is it illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?

I would recomend the Dirty Harry approach - pow ! and now go get your 40 virgins Mr. make believe cleric and bring your viagra since Allah is out of it---
 
And so will this terrorist if he isn't killed in the process of detaining him. Obama just made clear that it's fine if we have to kill him.

Then why spend money on trials just kill all the ones in custody. Unless it is only US citizens we kill
 
I would be for reading him his rights if he surrendered, but the fact is that he is a dangerous cleric who is hiding in a mountainous region and is surrounded by people who like to shoot Americans. Since when is it illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?

So kill US citizens and give foreign terrorist a trial. How many in Gitmo surrendered?
 
Then why spend money on trials just kill all the ones in custody. Unless it is only US citizens we kill

Nobody is saying anything about executions in lieu of trials.
 
No one is calling for killing of foreign terrorist just the ones that are US citizens. Is Obama protecting the Muslims for a reason?

Yes, they have the original copy of his birth certificate with Stalin's signature on it. :roll:
 
Your question presupposes that unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) are entitled to a trial, which they are not. Article Six of the Constitution incorporates treaties made under the authority of the US government and gives them the full force of law; in this case, the Geneva Conventions, and not the Fifth Amendment, would be the relevant legal text in determining the status of the Cleric.

No, my question presupposes that American citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections when pursued, captured, and detained by any authority of the United States.

The Constitution supersedes any treaty in matters of American law.

Ergo, the Constitution applies and the Geneva Conventions do not when it comes to the treatment of American citizens by American authorities.
 
What is "the supreme law of the land" if not the Constitution?

It absolutely is the Constitution, which is why it is listed first, and not third, in Article VI.

It makes no mention of importance or supremacy. It simply says that the Constitution, legislation, and treaties are "the supreme law of the land".

The supremacy is implicit at first, because otherwise federal laws which are judged unConstitutional could not be struck down by the courts.

The supremacy becomes explicit later in the Article, since it says judges are not bound by treaties in any instance where said treaties contradict the Constitution or federal law.

1. Where's the contradiction?

5th Amendment. The government cannot deny a citizen of the United States of life, liberty or property without due process.
 
Here's how I see it...

He's an American citizen, just like the Hutaree militia weirdos, BUT he left the country with the intention of taking part in an active terror campaign against the United States.

If I plan to walk into a building and mow down everyone in sight, and the feds caught wind of my plan, I'd be up on charges of conspiracy -- not killed on sight.

I see no reason why this man, even if he in fact is planning to kill Americans, should be treated any different.
 
Back
Top Bottom