It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Citizens targeted for assassination by White House. Ok/Not ok ?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Fair enough .

I just sense that there could be a very fine line here as to when I, personally, would approve or disapprove of a decision like this .




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cytokine_Strom
 


My point exactly .

With the Patriot Act , who's to say that you or I aren't extremists or terrorists simply by voicing our opinions in forums such as this ?

This could get a little tricky ...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Well, nothing really. This is exactly why many of us became so concerned when the White House began throwing around terms like:

Right-wing Extremists
Returning Vets and Extremism
Domestic Terrorists
Conservative Extremists

The White House is not only growing the scope of people they can kill, but also expanding the definition of whom they can kill -- all at the same time!

People seem to be under the impression that because it "happens over there" it will never "happen here".

I disagree since they are certainly making a huge effort to label us all the same and make sure that once labeled a "terrorist" you can be killed -- American or not.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


I agree with you 100% . I just can't believe that more people can't see the implications of this .

What is to stop them from doing this crap on American soil ?

They have shown us time and again that they will roll out the tanks and artillery against Americans .

Should the POTUS have the authority to authorize assassinations on American soil ?

Hell No ! But what's to stop him if there is zero or minimal interest in the fact that he is only doing it to some 'slime-ball' muslim , who just happens to be a U.S. citizen ?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cytokine_Strom
This is legalized murder.


they did the very same thing on 9/11 !!!
almost 10 yrs ago
and it's still going on today

u r right
it is legalized murder
by a tyrannical corrupt
dysfunctional government



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
There's no fine line here. Once you cross the line into legalized assassination (or what is euphemistically called "targeted killing") you've essentially crossed the Rubicon, not some ambiguous line filled with subtle shades of gray on either side. I would not support laying a hellfire missile on Osama bin Laden any more than on this guy - American citizen or no. We have no proof that any of the "targets" so far were planning attacks on the US and many of them were not even in US combat zones, but neutral or allied countries.

Even if in an " hostile country, we have not declared war on anyone and this is just an extension of preemptive war doctrine, an insane divergence from 80+ years of American foreign policy. That crossed a line into mass killing of citizens of countries whose leaders have only "thought about" doing us harm. If that's the standard, we have crossed into Orwellian territory.

We have a Constitution which recognizes any treaty signed by the US as the law of the land.

Article 6 "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.“

Conducting assassinations in foreign countries is no more acceptable than conducting them on our own soil. All Predator strikes should be stopped immediately, at the very least those conducted outside the borders of combat zones.

Targeting al-Alauqi is thus crossing two lines; targeting an American citizen for summary execution without due process and (undoubtedly) violating the air space of a sovereign nation to do so (Yemen or Pakistan).There's a reason we don't have an indictment of Osama bin Laden; the FBI doesn't think there's enough proof to even put him on its most wanted list. It does have arrest warrants on him for the attack on the Cole and bombing of our embassy in Kenya, Tanzania and the Riyadh truck bombing, but not for 9/11. Isn't that a bit curious?

Let's spend our resources getting to bottom of 9/11 before we spend another American or foreigner's life on this issue. Even after that, if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that any Muslims not acting under orders of our own intelligence agencies has taken American lives, than let's do go after them within the laws and treaties of this nation. If we can't do that, then we are simply conducting a suicide bombing on our Constitution. And if we're really at war, then let's assume some of the risk ourselves to protect our freedoms and not simply ask our military to take on that risk while we live "normal" lives at home.

I have not lived nearly 60 years to see this country turned into an haven for extra-legal assassins, nor to drape the flag over another coffin of one our troops sent on fools' errands abroad so I "can go shopping."



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
This is insane. Hello! Wake up in there!!!!

Your nation has no business having its soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq, and it sure as hell has no right to target its own citizens for assassination.

You guys better think fast and quick before you lose the whole of English Common Law.

Maybe it is the fluoride and chlorine in your drinking water, but I can't for the life of me understand how you USAmericans allowed portions of the Magna Carta to be scrapped, English Common Law held in abeyance and the rise of rule by Executive Order.

You need to smash this 'new system' and resecure the Magna Charta and English Common Law as the basis for legal order in your land. God save the USA.

[edit on 7/4/10 by Pellevoisin]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


I agree with you . We never had any business being in Iraq or Afghanistan as far as I'm concerned .

This whole charade has been about world conquest and is nothing more than a prelude to the implementation of the nefarious New World Order .

Still, we have to be careful in our choice of words . We can't openly advocate the overthrow of our government or the current way the corrupt system operates .

As far as the chlorine and flouride , I haven't drank from their poisened water supply in over twenty years . Nothing like the wonderful taste of well water or spring water for me .

I do see more and more people waking up , slowly , from day-to-day , and that is heartening .

Keep in mind that whatever our opinions are on this corrupt 'satan's seat' of power and control that is referred to as 'government' , we can do no good at all if we are spending our days in an 8x10 cell somewhere .

So , I caution all of you to be selective in your choice of words and the manner in which you present your disagreements and frustations .



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
This isn't America anymore

this is pure evil

It is time for all to seek God



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


Yes, Bush did. His admin also advicated the $0.08 option for dealing with Saddam



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Slippery slope. If they can assassinate this guy, why not others?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Hell no

Thats how it starts

I don't care if the guy has horns



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostpigeon
 


"Methinks thou doeth protest too much."

With current techniques, assasination is the only way to go. Do you trust the government you support? If you live in America everything you do and are contribute to death. I cant speak for other countries . I dont know of any large scale invasions besides the one in the middle east. What makes more sense ? Kill one or ten thousand? Oh thats right , cancer and old age are going to kill them anyway.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostpigeon
 


"Methinks thou doeth protest too much."

With current techniques, assasination is the only way to go. Do you trust the government you support? If you live in America everything you do and are contribute to death. I cant speak for other countries . I dont know of any large scale invasions besides the one in the middle east. What makes more sense ? Kill one or ten thousand? Oh thats right , cancer and old age are going to kill them anyway.

Just my opinion on a well written reply. It was a pleasure to read.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by psyko45]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Your comment about not thinking Obama is a Muslim made me think: If Obama WAS a secret Muslim, would he really approve assassinating other Muslims? Birthers make me laugh



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostpigeon
 


President Ford banned assassination by the government / affiliates while he was in office , but I'm thinking this only pertained to Heads-of State .

Anyone know of an Executive Order that has been issued since that time that would approve of / legalize assassinations of Any type , or is the current POTUS acting outside of the law ?



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
This is odd, why Barack is airing the presidential dirty laundy.
It's not odd for an excecutive power to order a hit, citizen or not. But it's weird if he tells everybody about it.

The reason people never heard the previous president or any other president outside the US ordering a hit to a citizen, it's because they're not gonna make it official, won't they?

It maybe somewhat a scare tactic for the jihadist, I'm not so sure, still.. I find this odd.

Or.. perhaps, he rather air this one himself, than the opposing party doing it to him. That's gotta to be the reason.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
But it's weird if he tells everybody about it.


That's some of that silly transparency stuff he talked about. You're right. Most past presidents would keep it from the public.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I trust the constitution


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress.

Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."



And if they fall in that definition by my constitution then I agree with death to them.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
But it's weird if he tells everybody about it.


That's some of that silly transparency stuff he talked about. You're right. Most past presidents would keep it from the public.

BH, I think Barack would be an extremely generous guy when it comes to transparency if he's transparent about this one.

I'm definitely leaning toward self disclosure. He doesn't want his political enemy to call him out. He doesn't want to take any risk whatsoever in case an insider squeal, or an outsider sniff this one.

Whatever his motive is.. transparency or otherwise, he has the luxury to do so, since the target is not exactly a controversial one. He tells everyone that he order the hit, emphasizing on the identity of the target.

It's not a farfetched if in the future the target will be controversial, of course he won't be transparent about it (I'll be surprised if he does). He'll try to keep it in the family. Making sure as few people know about it. Coz, it's necessary. He doesn't need to go through all of those trouble now because the target is too obvious of a bad guy.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join