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.

 

Holder: US can legally kill Americans in terror groups

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by alkesh
reply to post by Tanulis
 


Yes, let's continue due process. It works so well. Again, tell that to all the innocents who have been murdered. They didn't seem to get a fair trial. If were up to you an people like you this planet would have been overrun by pure evil many centuries ago with your due process and fair trials. Sometimes good must do bad to make things right. Thats the way the world works.


That is a sophomoric, disgustingly furious and improper judgement of me, who simply wishes to uphold honesty and fairness, not just to suspected criminals, but also to you. All people deserve the right to a trial.

Who/what gives you the divine right to cast such violent judgement on someone else without weighing the evidence of their conviction first? Violence happens in the world, certainly, but if you meet every violent act with an exponentially more fierce and unnecessary one, you'll only be exacerbating the problem we face now with the corrupt system that is in place.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Tanulis because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 




Holder should be sitting in Leavenworth prison,and Obama should have a cell right next door to his.






posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I'll star that Sonny
but should he get due process
or should he just disappear or have a heart attack on the way home from the local pub



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I'll star that Sonny
but should he get due process
or should he just disappear or have a heart attack on the way home from the local pub


Star back at ya.......



I think we use Obama's existing "laws" on him. The same laws hes touting..........





posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
ATS has a habit of bringing up the same debates over and over again. This question has been dealt with a number of times.

The fact is, and as has been dealt with in the law on a number of occasions in the past, once an American takes up arms against the United States, or actively supports those who do, he becomes an enemy combatant. Once he becomes an enemy combatant, he can (and will) be targeted under the rules of war. The rules of war do not require an indictment, a trial, or a legal judgement prior to using deadly force against a combatant.

Put another way, you cannot wrap yourself in an American flag for protection, as you shoot at (or bomb) other citizens.

This particular thread is about American "terrorists" abroad...but this idea that all Americans are entitled to a fair trial, no matter what the circumstances is more hysterical than logical.

If this is what you truly believe, then you need to go ahead and disarm all of the police forces across the U.S. By this logic, a police officer should not be able to gun down a person who is in the commission of a violent crime.

They should, by this logic, stand by and watch a madman shoot somebody in the head. Then they should calmly approach him try to arrest him. When he starts shooting them, they should patiently wait until he runs out of bullets...and hopefully there are still some officers left alive. Then they should arrest him and give him his fair trial.

The point is...of course...there are certain activities that an American can engage in that will take away his "right" to judicial due process. Leaving the country to join a foreign terrorist group, and participating in plots designed to murder innocent American citizens back home (or fighting American soldiers abroad), is one of them.

edit on 5-3-2012 by mobiusmale because: typo



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
darn i forgot to add drone attack and arizona border guard to the list of possible sentances
ooops

edit to add
Well, Mo
holder supported those who took up arms against the united states of america
and obama supports him
edit on 5-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 


And another zero clue shows up. SUSPICION of terrorist activities is not COMMITTING terrorist acts. All that is required for the U.S. government to murder someone now is the former. Yet again, is an absolute violation of an American's right to due process.

Man, fascists just won't stop supporting this administration. Amazing.

/TOA



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by mobiusmale
 

Man, fascists just won't stop supporting this administration. Amazing.

/TOA


" Wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross " - Sinclair Lewis
It isn't just this admin, this admin is just carrying on from the last admin, who was carrying on from the admin before that, and so one like that there.....
edit on 5-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 





And Holder indicated more targeted killings are possible. "When such individuals take up arms against this country, and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans, there may be only one realistic and appropriate response," Holder said. "We must take steps to stop them in full accordance with the Constitution. In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not." He concluded, "This is an indicator of our times, not a departure from our laws and values."


Holder: Not 'assassination' to target Americans in terror hunt

This administration is making a mockery of the Constitution.......



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by mobiusmale
 

Man, fascists just won't stop supporting this administration. Amazing.

/TOA


" Wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross " - Sinclair Lewis
It isn't just this admin, this admin is just carrying on from the last admin, who was carrying on from the admin before that, and so one like that there.....
edit on 5-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


I know other administrations have done it, but none have never been more brazen about it. The Obama administration is doing nothing different than telling us to just accept that the sky is green, and then being shocked and argumentative when we don't.

/TOA



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Since Holder Is responsible for giving guns to drug dealers and terrorists I suppose, according to himself, he should just go eat a bullet since he's already guilty and all.
edit on 5-3-2012 by LittleBlackEagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by alkesh
 

Youre so right.

Why give anyone a trial. Its not as though a right to a trial is a natural or "God given right".

Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, tax evaders, jay walkers, people who fart in elevators, kill 'em all. Its not like the government is ever wrong.

Except in these 289 cases, 17 of whom were on death row. Of-course this is a tiny % of wrongful convictions. Due to funding constraints, the real number may never be known. And these people actually received some sort of due process.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by mobiusmale
 


And another zero clue shows up. SUSPICION of terrorist activities is not COMMITTING terrorist acts. All that is required for the U.S. government to murder someone now is the former. Yet again, is an absolute violation of an American's right to due process.

Man, fascists just won't stop supporting this administration. Amazing.

/TOA


Interesting debating style...open with an insult. A schoolyard tactic,really, that usually ends up with two people coming to blows...instead of engaging in additional discourse. But, I will refrain from taking the bait.

In a time of war, a person's membership in an enemy combatant organization is enough to justify the application of deadly force. Al Qaeda is such an organization. The Taliban is another. The Allied forces regularly target and kill members, of various stature, in these two organizations. Military leaders in these groups, in particular, are prime targets - and should be. Anwar al-Awlaki was a perfect example.

Just because an enemy combatant happens to be American does not, and should not, shield them from attack within the military context.

What you seem to fail to realize is that an entirely different set of legal rules exist during military conflicts, than for offences committed in the regular course.

In al-Awlaki's case, there was absolutely no doubt that he was a member of Al Qaeda, that he was a leader within that organization, that he was encouraging and assisting others in planning and executing attacks on innocent Americans. Do I really need to go into some of the known "capers" he was involved in?

Enemy combatants, American or not, are not entitled to judicial due process under the Constitution. No amount of blustering on your part will change this fact.

And...you ended with an insult too...nice.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Look, I dont know if we understand both sides of the argument here.

I agree that the US government should not arbitrarily execute US citizens, suspected of anything, without due process of law. Unfortunately, the subject is way more complicated than that.

There are many things that have to be considered.

I dont think it is the current administration's goal to justify denying a US citizen due process and executing them.

First, we are not dealing with US citizens residing in the US. If they were residing in the US, we would issue an arrest warrant, look for them, eventually arrest them if possible and bring them to trial. If the terrorist was operating in a friendly nation, the same process could be used by foreign authorities, maybe with the assistance of US forces, and eventually the suspected terrorist would be arrested and brought back to the US for trial. When it comes to international terrorism, terrorists are given "safe" harbor by nations that are not exactly friendly to the US. These nations deny the US access to their country to look for the suspected terrorist and they refuse to look for, apprehend and extradite said person back to the US. This makes it next to impossible for the US to arrest said suspected terrorist so they may be brought to trial.

So what is the US to do in this situation? Should we allow the suspected terrorist to continue operating and potentially kill US citizens?

There is enough proof to arrest the person and charge them but it is impossible to effect an arrest and bring them to trial.

Do we have a trial in absentia where a trial is conducted without the accused being there? Well, I am sure there would be critics of that process. If the person never came to trial, how could an adequate defense be prepared?

We can also look at this from the point of view of law enforcement. If a police officer believes that someone is a threat to public safety and can articulate it, for example a person just shot someone and is now running away holding a gun, the police officer can use deadly force to stop that person to protect the public. We can apply the example to this situation. The US has probable cause to believe that person is planning and executing terrorist acts that kill or have the potential to kill US citizens. The suspected terrorist can not be apprehended due to their presence in a foreign nation. If the suspected terrorist could be apprehended, they would. But because they cant, the decision is made to kill them to protect the public.

It is way more complicated then simply accusing the current administration of denying US citizens due process.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

The problem here is that it also covers someone only suspected of being part of a terrorist organization. No proof is required, no killing has to actually have been committed. Only suspicion. Even Charles Manson and Jeffery Dahmer received the benefits of due process.

Learn to think critically and beyond your emotions and you'll see the implications of this.

/TOA


I was against this when I read the patriot act and I am still against it now.
Suspecting a person is not a crime, it is a very, very slippery slope.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mobiusmale


If war, a person's membership in an enemy combatant organization is enough to justify the application of deadly force. Al Qaeda is such an organization. The Taliban is another.
.


The problem is that for the government it is simple enough to SAY someone is a combatant
to justify a killing. This is a situation were the secrecy of national security can be used to
justify tremendous abuse and systematic assassination.
edit on 6-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 
People thought i was nuts to say NDAA2012 did just this, kill with out proof just on word of saying "your one of them". Oh yea lets not for get the Pact that started all this NDAA2012 Sub Sec D 1021 1022, just clarifies who's who.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 



The fact is, and as has been dealt with in the law on a number of occasions in the past, once an American takes up arms against the United States, or actively supports those who do, he becomes an enemy combatant. Once he becomes an enemy combatant, he can (and will) be targeted under the rules of war. The rules of war do not require an indictment, a trial, or a legal judgement prior to using deadly force against a combatant.

Well, service in a foreign nation's armed forces does not automatically result in the forfeiture of US citizenship.

Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of foreign military service originating within the United States. The current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S. , 163 U.S. 632 (1896), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army; however, when someone has been recruited or hired in he United States, a violation may have occurred. The prosecution of persons who have violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960 is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

Loss of U.S. nationality was almost immediate consequences of foreign military service and the other acts listed in Section 349(a) until 1967 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S. 253. In that decision, the court declared unconstitutional the provisions of Section 349(a) which provided for loss of nationality by voting in a foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated that a U.S. citizen "has a constitutional right to remain a citizen... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship."

Further confirmation of the necessity to establish the citizen's intent to relinquish nationality before expatriation will result came in the opinion in Vance v. Terrazas , 444 U.S. 252 (1980). The Court stated that "expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct." The Court also indicated that a person's intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship may be shown by statements or actions.

Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship. Voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

Source
The person must have the INTENT to renounce their citizenship.

And this only applies to officially recognized foreign military service. Joining an international terrorist organization that is not connected to a foreign government would not be considered joining a foreign military service.

Put another way, you cannot wrap yourself in an American flag for protection, as you shoot at (or bomb) other citizens.

Sure you can. Murderers, criminal gang members and domestic terrorists do it all the time and we dont execute them without trial.

I dont think this is a question of whether these people were US citizens or not.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 


and the police does not plant evidence.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Isn't this all pretty much in defense of killing this guy since his father brought the case to Federal Court?

Anwar al-Awlaki?


The Yemeni government began trying him (al-Awlaki in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive". According to U.S. officials, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda in 2009.He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States



Anwar al-Awlaki, imam linked to Ft. Hood gunman Hasan, believed to have been killed in Yemeni strike


Yemeni warplanes took aim at a secret meeting of top al Qaeda leaders Thursday, killing "scores," officials said. Among those believed slain was Anwar al-Awlaki, the influential American-born radical cleric who egged on the US Army major who shot up Fort Hood last month.


To play devils advocate, here is a video of the man speaking and in his defense, he does not look or sound like such a threat Here he is shown very much AGAINST killing innocent civilians:

edit on 6-3-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join