Is Targeting Citizens Ok With You?

[friday]

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?

 

[misterman]

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.

Wiretapping U.S. citizens, or anyone in the U.S., is fine - when the proper procedures, such as a warrant, are followed. That has always been the point. Nobody opposed wiretapping, just warrantless wiretapping. Did Obama continue this policy? If you post a link to what Obama policy you're referring to, that would help us decide.

 

[friday]

Wiretapping U.S. citizens, or anyone in the U.S., is fine - when the proper procedures, such as a warrant, are followed. That has always been the point. Nobody opposed wiretapping, just warrantless wiretapping. Did Obama continue this policy? If you post a link to what Obama policy you're referring to, that would help us decide.

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet - NYTimes.com

Obama's wiretapping stand enrages many supporters - The New York Times

Obama expands Bush’s wiretapping program | Conservative Heritage Times

Obama supports Bush's wiretapping program - Seattle Island County Conservative | Examiner.com

Honestly, not surprised that isn't common knowledge.

 

[friday]

Wiretapping U.S. citizens, or anyone in the U.S., is fine - when the proper procedures, such as a warrant, are followed. That has always been the point. Nobody opposed wiretapping, just warrantless wiretapping. Did Obama continue this policy? If you post a link to what Obama policy you're referring to, that would help us decide.

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US | www.wokv.com

Here is his lawyers defending killing US citizens outside of due process if the executive branch deems them to be enemies of the state.

 

[misterman]

Honestly, not surprised that isn't common knowledge.

I thought you were referring to some new policy that was breaking news.

I personally oppose it when Obama does it as much as Bush, though I don't see this as exactly the same thing.

 

[Temporal]

The terrorism and security clauses have been incredibly abused in order to make the terrorism laws applicable to people who are protesting against the government.

This latest law could theoretically label you a terrorist if you commit any act of violence against law enforcement that could be deemed terrorism. The Patriot Act has been stretched in similar ways.

The wording of this new law does not seem to separate foreign combattants from citizens on U.S. soil. Make no mistake, this law is preparation for future civil unrest right here, not in the Middle East.

I can't get over how fast rights are being eroded in our country. It seems to be accelerating.

 

[StillBallin75]

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?

Yes. The abridgement of civil liberties is the abridgement of civil liberties regardless of whether the dude in the Oval Office has an R or a D after his name.

 

[friday]

I thought you were referring to some new policy that was breaking news.

I personally oppose it when Obama does it as much as Bush, though I don't see this as exactly the same thing.

The executive's privilege to declare war on US citizens without congressional or court approval and order their destruction certainly is a new policy. Unlike non-citizen, illegal foreign combatants, US Citizens do have fifth amendment constitutional rights. Now, if they are killed while in a caravan of Al Qaida foreigners on foreign soil, that is one thing. But the blanket statement from Obama's lawyers that the executive branch has the right to determine, apart from Congress or the courts, when a US citizen has declared war on the United States and then unilaterally order their destruction is very dangerous.

 

[Thunder]

if you have joined an enemy illegal army, and are actively planning and assisting plans to murder American civilians, and have become an important source of command & control for such operations against the USA....then you should be snuffed.

 

[friday]

This is the danger of a President who can't separate US Citizens from foreign unlawful combatants. He wants civilian trials in US criminal courts for Al Qaida foreigners, and the right to drop bombs on US Citizens outside of the due process of law if he deems them to be an enemy. That is completely backwards policy.

 

[Thunder]

we should do our utmost best to avoid killing citizens in the USA who are terrorists.

however, sometimes there is no alternative.

 

[friday]

we should do our utmost best to avoid killing citizens in the USA who are terrorists.

however, sometimes there is no alternative.

I agree, but that is a far cry from what Obama's lawyers have cooked up. Maybe a little Presidential clarification is in order.

 

[tessaesque]

If you physically catch a U.S. citizen in process of committing an act of treason or terrorism against us then I understand shooting to kill, assuming that your life is at risk or the lives of others are at risk in that moment. I completely disagree with the assassination of the U.S. citizen cleric which took place a month or so ago. The man should have been captured/extradited with Yemen's help and made to stand trial for his crimes.

I especially dislike the idea that the executive branch is to make the determination to kill without the involvement of anybody else. To whom do they answer if there are questions regarding the culpability of the most recent target?

 

[Ikari]

The government is to be extremely limited in its powers and the force that it may apply to our free exercise of rights. If they want to search or wiretap, they need to get a warrant. Warrantless searches are BS, and it doesn't matter which administration it comes under. Assassination is down right appalling and should be considered an act of treason against the People.

 

[Thunder]

I agree, but that is a far cry from what Obama's lawyers have cooked up. Maybe a little Presidential clarification is in order.

the new law that was passed today does NOT allow American citizens or legal aliens caught in the USA as enemy combatants, to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial.

 

[Thunder]

...Assassination is down right appalling and should be considered an act of treason against the People.

The Constitution clearly states what is and is NOT....treason.

 

[Bodi]

Yes and no. A US Citizen actively involved in treason or in killing other US Citizens should be caught and tried as much as possible... but one that is working with the enemy at the enemies base or in the field shooting at US Soldiers should just be killed as any other "bad guy".

With regards to wiretapping, as long as it is done legally as was done with the mafia? Fine with me. They should have probable cause and all that though... if I found out I was being tapped i would have a massive problem though, as I would with any other "normal" citizen.

 

[Ikari]

The Constitution clearly states what is and is NOT....treason.

Breaking the Constitution is treason. They take an oath to uphold it which comes with certain guarantees for citizens with arrests, trials by jury, etc. Less a writ of reprisal is issued or habeas corpus is suspended, they cannot arbitrarily assassinate our own citizens they suspect of committing crimes. If the government wants to kill them, they must prove their guilt in a court of law and seek the death penalty.

 

[friday]

Breaking the Constitution is treason. They take an oath to uphold it which comes with certain guarantees for citizens with arrests, trials by jury, etc. Less a writ of reprisal is issued or habeas corpus is suspended, they cannot arbitrarily assassinate our own citizens they suspect of committing crimes. If the government wants to kill them, they must prove their guilt in a court of law and seek the death penalty.

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).

 

[Thunder]

Breaking the Constitution is treason.....

says who??????

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

citizens who wage war against the United States have committed treason, according to OUR Constitution.

 

[Ikari]

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.

 

[Thunder]

...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.

 

[coolwalker]

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.

 

[Zyphlin]

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.

 

[Zyphlin]

Breaking the Constitution is treason.

Are you speaking in a legal sense of fact, or a generalized sense of opinion?