Assassinating Americans, Secretly

reply to post by airspoon


There is a consititutional argument between Congress's ability to declare war, and the President being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Also, Bush, as well as Clinton, rejected the war powers act as unconcstitutional when congress passed it (after Vietnam) as infrigning on the right of the repside to be commande rin chief.

If we are going to hold outselves though to these standards, then the last offical war the US was in was WWII.

reply to post by aptness


apprehending him would require, of all things, sending actual soldiers to capture him and america can't handle one american casuality. maybe america can settle wars with paintballs, that way everyone is happy.

This is frustrating to hear.

Even if they're only targeting "bad guys" with such unconstitutional assassinations, allowing that kind of expanded extra-judicial killing power for the government against American CITIZENS is taking a terrible risk for the future. We don't know what kind of government/leaders we'll have in the future or what they'll use their powers for. Not to mention, despite its faults, the judicial system can STILL take care of issues like these. This is about being humane even to those who pose a threat to innocent lives, and at the VERY LEAST providing OTHER American citizens the open/public and constitutional trial of other citizens. The government needs to start focusing on ITSELF as a threat rather than the populace for a change. This shows a total disrespect for our constitutional rights, regardless of who they decide to assassinate.

Legally, a US citizen - including those of dual citizenship like Obama may be - is protected under the Constitution just as if he or she was home in Washington DC, even when on foreign soil.

This does not preclude the action of another government against that citizen, but it means no US government action may deny that person's Constitutional right to a fair trial, and other rights.

This kill order against a US citizen is completely unconstitutional, and chilling, no matter how deserving the target is.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Legally, a US citizen - including those of dual citizenship like Obama may be - is protected under the Constitution just as if he or she was home in Washington DC, even when on foreign soil.

This does not preclude the action of another government against that citizen, but it means no US government action may deny that person's Constitutional right to a fair trial, and other rights.

This kill order against a US citizen is completely unconstitutional, and chilling, no matter how deserving the target is.

edit on 2-10-2010 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2010 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)

Actually this is not entirely correct.. If the American Citizen takes expatriating actions, they can loose their citizenship. The Federal Government is not removing it, but the person comitting the actions. The guy is advocating attacks on the US, and is a recruiter for the extremist organization, with an intent on doing damage to the US.

Where does one draw a line?

While the propect of the FEderal Government going down the road of assasinating citizens is nerve racking, its not without support based on the actions of the person they are going after.

INS laws are abundant in this area, with recent federal legislation and USSC actions to refine the list of expatriate offense.

Could the argument be made, that as a US and Yemeni citizen, the guy has a right to make a choice in terms of where his loyalties lie? And by heading to Yemen to actively recruit while at the same time advocating armed resitance to the US, that he made that decision?

Why would this be any different than an American Citizen being killed in a firefight while engaging US forces in Afghanistan?

i]reply to post by randomname


It takes the same number of people to assassinate him. You think airplanes just fly over a country looking for something to bomb? Lol, there is a huge human element involved on the ground, whether it be to gather intelligence for the acquisition of targets or to guide the munitions to their targets with LTDs.

--airspoon



reply to post by Xcathdra

He holds American-Yemeni citizenship. He left the United States for Yemen to assist the radical elements there in their goals. He is a recruiter for the organization, and has advocated violence agains the United States.

And you know this how? Because you were told, by the same people who told you that Iraq had WMDs and were in bed with Al Qaeda? Have you sat on some secret jury that nobody seems to know about? Regardless of what you think you know about him, here in America, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or at least afforded presumption of innocence. That's what separates us from the Nazis, Cubans, North Koreans and Soviets. Furthermore, what you think you know, may not be the truth or at least the whole truth, which is why he should be tried. If he is as guilty as you think he is (which I believe he is too), then there should be no problem at all with convicting him.

When you allow government to subvert the Constitution, you are setting a precedent that will never go back to how it should be. We have seen over and over again that when American give their government an inch, they take a mile and keep running with it.

The lawsuit by the ACLU is challenging not so much the actual assassination order of an American Citizen (Which was, and must be approved, the the National Security Council), but the ability for the US Government to act in an area where we are not officially at war. Their argument is because the US is not at war with Yemen, they don't have the authority to go after someone in that country.

No, you are wrong. In court proceedings, sometimes you have to open the door to litigation with laws that are on the books, before you can proceed with issues that have no precedence. The ACLU was conducting a lawsuit on behalf of the father to halt the assassination of his son, a US citizen. The Obama admin invoked the "states secrets privilege act" to prevent the courts from even hearing the lawsuit. The idea that the courts are forced out of the decision making process when determining the criteria for executing American citizens, is scary at best and certainly indicative of where we are in our freedom. It's funny as almost every other dictatorship in modern history has enacted the same measures to block out the courts from determining the executions of their citizens.


I would also like to add that there are many definitions of treason, but the general idea is that of someone acting against their country, particularly government officials.

The insinuation the government is making a kill list of American Citizens is a bit misleading. The order issued is the first of its kind with an American Citizen who holds dual citizenship.

That's something you wouldn't know and apparently aren't going to know. You have no idea what kind of "kill list" or who is on it, as apparently, that is a secret that is not even allowed to be argued in court. Your statement is misleading, as it implies that you know. In fact, this very thread is about how the Obama admin is invoking the SSPA to keep this out of court because the government believes that their process of killing American citizens needs to stay a secret from the American people.

This guy has made it very clear what he is about, and what his intentions are. The fact he is a dual citizen is irrelevant in this case, and is supported by law, as well as USSC case law.

No, he hasn't. The government has made it clear to you. You have only heard him speak on a couple of occasions and each "speech" was well within his 1st Amendment right. Americans have the right to free speech, which includes the right to hate the American government. It is not grounds to revoke citizenship and it's certainly not grounds for execution. If we want to execute him for any crime, then he needs to be tried in court and the case should be tried in front of 12 of his peers. If the government can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty, then I'm sure his peers will convict and the judge can sentence him, according to law.

There is a constitutional argument between Congress's ability to declare war, and the President being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

No there isn't, at least not any kind of valid debate. The Constitution strictly states that only Congress can declare war. The Commander in Chief can only direct the troops. I'm sure that FOX News, CNN or MSNBC says there is a valid debate because they want to justify what is happening. If they plant the seed that anything could be interpreted that way, then people think that Constitution isn't being completely subverted.

You should really read the Constitution and research the parts that you don't understand. Being the Commander in Chief has no effect on declaring war, just as being the Commanding General of an Army division, doesn't give you the right to declare war. What it does allow the President to do, is command the troops how he sees fit and over-ride Generals if he needs to, either in peace time or after war has been declared. Being the Commander in Chief does not allow one to declare war. The US military and US government belongs to the people and so Congress, the peoples' representatives, decide whether that force can be used for war, not a single person.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war. Again, being in command of a force is much different than being able to declare war. Being in command of forces only allows the commander to dictate how they will be used, not whether they will be used. Our founding fathers saw the dangers in giving any one man the power to declare war and so made it perfectly clear that Congress declares war, not the President.

There is no valid debate as to whether the Commander in Chief can declare war, just because he is the Commander in Chief. There might be a debate according to your favorite pundit, but these are people who either know nothing about the Constitution and the principals of a democratic republic, or these are people trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
And you know this how? Because you were told, by the same people who told you that Iraq had WMDs and were in bed with Al Qaeda? Have you sat on some secret jury that nobody seems to know about? Regardless of what you think you know about him, here in America, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or at least afforded presumption of innocence. That's what separates us from the Nazis, Cubans, North Koreans and Soviets. Furthermore, what you think you know, may not be the truth or at least the whole truth, which is why he should be tried. If he is as guilty as you think he is (which I believe he is too), then there should be no problem at all with convicting him.

When you allow government to subvert the Constitution, you are setting a precedent that will never go back to how it should be. We have seen over and over again that when American give their government an inch, they take a mile and keep running with it.

Uhm no, you can take a look at his facebook page, as well as read about the organisations he is advocating. Check the lawsuit that was filed and you can find background information forming the basis of their case etc. I dont jsut take the Governments word for it, but at the same time im not completely ready to disbeleive everything they say.

The argument about WMD's was under Bush. Obama is in office now. Are you saying that he is continuing the same policy that Bush had in place? Is Obama now lieing to the American Public jsut as Bush did? Or does it appear that way because the Government is doing something they are legally allowed to do that you dont agree with?

Originally posted by airspoon
No, you are wrong. In court proceedings, sometimes you have to open the door to litigation with laws that are on the books, before you can proceed with issues that have no precedence. The ACLU was conducting a lawsuit on behalf of the father to halt the assassination of his son, a US citizen. The Obama admin invoked the "states secrets privilege act" to prevent the courts from even hearing the lawsuit. The idea that the courts are forced out of the decision making process when determining the criteria for executing American citizens, is scary at best and certainly indicative of where we are in our freedom. It's funny as almost every other dictatorship in modern history has enacted the same measures to block out the courts from determining the executions of their citizens.

Then I respectfully suggest you look up a term called standing, especially in Criminal Court proceedings, such as this is. The Father has no standing in court, since he is not w wronged party to Government Actions. His son is over the age of 18, further establishing the father has no legal standing to bring a suit on behalf of his son, especially when the son is not present to support it.

Originally posted by airspoon
I would also like to add that there are many definitions of treason, but the general idea is that of someone acting against their country, particularly government officials.

The defitnion goes beyond just Government Officals. It takes into account many other areas, inclusing being par tof a forieng military that takes up action against the US, aiding an enemy outside of medical concerns (which can still get you dead - I refer you to Botth and his broken leg).

Originally posted by airspoon
That's something you wouldn't know and apparently aren't going to know. You have no idea what kind of "kill list" or who is on it, as apparently, that is a secret that is not even allowed to be argued in court. Your statement is misleading, as it implies that you know. In fact, this very thread is about how the Obama admin is invoking the SSPA to keep this out of court because the government believes that their process of killing American citizens needs to stay a secret from the American people.

A valid point. Can you show me your evidence of the Government kill list, and your knwoledge about it, and how many people are on it, who signed off on the list, and who is specifically targets then? You seem intent on it existing, while saying those of us who question it are wrong based on lack of information. Same rule applies to your argument here.

Originally posted by airspoon
No, he hasn't. The government has made it clear to you. You have only heard him speak on a couple of occasions and each "speech" was well within his 1st Amendment right. Americans have the right to free speech, which includes the right to hate the American government. It is not grounds to revoke citizenship and it's certainly not grounds for execution. If we want to execute him for any crime, then he needs to be tried in court and the case should be tried in front of 12 of his peers. If the government can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty, then I'm sure his peers will convict and the judge can sentence him, according to law.

Ahh, more "dont beleive what the Government tells you because they lie all the time". I dont mind paranoia, but it goes to extremes on this site. The moment they do something that people dont agree with due to misconceptions about law, howit works and how it applies, its nothing more than a conspiracy.

You can find sources of information outside of the US where this guys talks about his intentions, plans etc. Or are all news sources about this guy government propoganda? Even when the guy goes on the record, is it government propoganda?

If this is the case, then why are you not on the kill list? You dont trust the government, you say they violate the law, you dont agree with their policies. By this extension, based on arguments, you should be on the kill list because you are not supporting the government.

Are you on the list? You are still here, combating what the Government is doing. Maybe they arent as sisnister as some make them out to be. Otherwise, you would be locked up by now for disagreeing with US foriegn Policy, as prescribed in the (un)patriot act.

Originally posted by airspoon
No there isn't, at least not any kind of valid debate.... Other Constitutional points.

There is no valid debate as to whether the Commander in Chief can declare war, just because he is the Commander in Chief. There might be a debate according to your favorite pundit, but these are people who either know nothing about the Constitution and the principals of a democratic republic, or these are people trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

--airspoon

The President never declared war, and as commander in chief he can send the troops wherever he wants. Congress can declare war, or not declare war. And since Congress is also repsonsible for the day to day operations of the country, including the purse strings, they dont have to fund the action the President sent the troops to, forcing a return to home bases.

If Congress actually excersized this ability, we would be better off. They have not, even after all the bitching about Bush and what he did, Congress could have easily said no, we are not funding it, forcing the issue. If the President refused, then we move into impeachment proceedings to recitfy the situationusing the consititution.

Also, please look up the constitutional debate involving the War Powers Act.

Before you launch remarks in my direction, please take your own adive that you gave me. You dont know me, or my background, so dont prejudge me ok.

I took an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, as well as the State I reside in, against all enemies, Foriegn and Domestic. I am very well aquainted with the Constitution, since my profession deals with individual rights and criminal / civil violations on a daily basis.

I am pointing out different angles to your argument. Whether you agree with them or not is up to you.

Well we have had some updates on this guy.

For starters he is now wanted by Yemen

Yemen charges US-born radical cleric al-Awlaki

SAN'A, Yemen – Yemen put a U.S.-born radical cleric on trial in absentia Tuesday, accusing him and two other men with plotting to kill foreigners and of being members of al-Qaida. It was the first formal legal action by Yemen against Anwar al-Awlaki, and came as the country faces heavy pressure to crack down on the terror network following the interception of two mail bombs intercepted in Dubai and Britain last week.

Prosecutor Ali al-Saneaa announced the charges against al-Awlaki as part of a trial against another man, Hisham Assem, who has been charged accused of killing a Frenchman in an Oct. 6 attack at an oil firm's compound where he worked as a security guard.

Assem, 19, was present in court, but al-Awlaki and a third suspect, Osman al-Awlaki, were charged in absentia. The hearing was held amid tight security measures at a courthouse in downtown San'a.

Prime suspect in cargo plane bomb plot: Anwar al-Awlaki

A new video has been released as well from him, calling for more attacks on the West.

This is how it works, this is how it's been working for quite a while now.
ALL the administrations are tied together, seamlessly, what one does but doesnt use, is put there like a seed, to grow for the future, to be ready when needed as the agenda moves along.
The puppets that dance in front of us before during and after their election HAVE no power, they are GIVEN power or have access to protection for themselves or for the agenda, mainly a combination of both.
Sounds far fetched or illegal or futuristic?
It sure does and it sure is.

This is what happens when you dont pay attention and you live distracted as a nation collectively,
Someone lights a fire in your backyard and creates a huge ruckus and you notice and direct all your attention to the fire they lit,
Then they walk right in your front door through your home, stand in your kitchen window and laugh as they watch you battle the blaze they started,
and as your back is turned focused on their custom made trouble, they walk up behind you and your family and eliminate you.
Whether YOU are an individual, a group, a freedom or a right, or even a constitution or a nation,
YOU are no longer,
and it's all being done under the guise of safety, precaution, fear, and as a preventative measure,
very effectively with a blind media fed patriotic theme song playing in the background.
You can only say 'wake up people' so many times, until youre talking to a nation full of lifeless bodies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


While I share some of your concerns, I don't think shredding the Constitution in order to create an even more authoritative Government is going to help matters.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

 

While I share some of your concerns, I don't think shredding the Constitution in order to create an even more authoritative Government is going to help matters.

I'm confused about your reply, you believe I condone this?
If so, oh no no no no no no.
Very much the opposite, radically so.

I think American presidents have always had a secret license to kill. We don't know who killed who. Maybe sweet ol' Jimmy Carter assasinated more than Obama and Bush combined. At least Obama is doing his killing out in the open, well, kind of.