skinfan2k Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Define your term.Near as I can tell, drunk drivers put the general American population in danger. So do people who drive while on the cell phone, and tobacco company executives. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah but terrorists try to harm a a lot of people at once ---------- Post added October-1st-2011 at 08:39 PM ---------- Sorry, not the way it works. You earn the right of American citizens by being an American citizen. You maintain those rights until are convicted in a court of lawBut here's my question: Do your rights as an American citizen extend outside of the country? The intel community begs to differ lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Sorry, not the way it works. You earn the right of American citizens by being an American citizen. You maintain those rights until are convicted in a court of lawBut here's my question: Do your rights as an American citizen extend outside of the country? except when participating in acts of war or terror(judged as a subset of war)...civil law is immaterial then ....as are those rights afforded defining him as a enemy combatant seems reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 So the President can declare a citizen a terrorist and kill him and you're okay with that. Why do you blindly trust the Presidency? Thats why the FISA board and Congressional intelligence comittee was created? Behind a red sign that reads Court Chambers and through a series of electronically sealed doors lies a secret court that has approved wiretaps that target terrorists and foreign agents since 1979. Currently 10 federal judges, who serve in judicial districts across the nation, sit on the FISA Court on a rotating basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 yea if they put the general american population in danger But who and how do you make that determination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 But who and how do you make that determination? he's the president lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I believe there were some Americans who went to fight for Germany in WWII. We killed them no problem. Same thing applies here, we are at war with AQ, AAA was fighting for AQ and got killed. No difference really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 How about a country without diplomatic clout? Generally, I think the killing of an American citizen is more worrisome because there's greater historical precedent for pretty much indiscriminate of non-American citizens even during a non-declared war. Realistically, I think we need to have some better defined legal process in these types of issues in non-combat situations for non-American and American citizens. ---------- Post added October-1st-2011 at 09:10 PM ---------- I believe there were some Americans who went to fight for Germany in WWII. We killed them no problem. Same thing applies here, we are at war with AQ, AAA was fighting for AQ and got killed. No difference really. 1. There is no declared war. If they'd declare war on Al Qeada that would change things. 2. To my knowledge, there were no Americans specfically targeted to my knowledge in WWII. This guy wasn't killed on a battlefield in Afghanistan. ---------- Post added October-1st-2011 at 09:10 PM ---------- he's the president lol! So? The US Constitution has limits on Presidential power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Question for the folks claiming that there is no slippery slope with the President having the authority to order the assination of people. A year from now, Obama does the same thing to a higher-up in MS13. Y'all cool with that? Yesss sireee, and i'll give him mad props if he drones some of these drug lords in Mexico. ---------- Post added October-1st-2011 at 09:53 PM ---------- Harry Contrary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Generally, I think the killing of an American citizen is more worrisome because there's greater historical precedent for pretty much indiscriminate of non-American citizens even during a non-declared war. Realistically, I think we need to have some better defined legal process in these types of issues in non-combat situations for non-American and American citizens.---------- Post added October-1st-2011 at 09:10 PM ---------- 1. There is no declared war. If they'd declare war on Al Qeada that would change things. 2. To my knowledge, there were no Americans specfically targeted to my knowledge in WWII. This guy wasn't killed on a battlefield in Afghanistan. ---------- Post added October-1st-2011 at 09:10 PM ---------- So? The US Constitution has limits on Presidential power. Congress has authorized military action against Al Queda, thus we have "declared war" on AQ. Regardless of his position he is still la legitimate war target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Congress has authorized military action against Al Queda, thus we have "declared war" on AQ. Regardless of his position he is still la legitimate war target. Pretty much, /thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Congress has authorized military action against Al Queda, thus we have "declared war" on AQ. Regardless of his position he is still la legitimate war target. I believe you, but what source/documentation do you have of this? Does it differentiate between the war in Iraq and Al Queda as its own entity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I believe you, but what source/documentation do you have of this? Does it differentiate between the war in Iraq and Al Queda as its own entity? Use of Military force against AQ Public Law 107-40 September 18, 2001 GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf War in Iraq Public LAw 107-243 October 16, 2002 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncr2h Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdfWar in Iraq Public LAw 107-243 October 16, 2002 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf That act seems to authorize force against those that were involved with planning and executing the 9/11 attacks. Was this guy involved in 9/11? What little I've heard seems to indicate that he wasn't influential in Al Queda until after the attacks. If he wasn't involved in 9/11, then we can't really use this legislation as justification for the assassination, can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 That act authorizes force against those that were involved with planning and executing the 9/11 attacks. Was this guy involved in 9/11? What little I've heard seems to indicate that he didn't get involved in Al Queda until after the attacks. If he wasn't involved in 9/11, then we can't really use this legislation as justification for the assassination, can we? Here is the key phrase ", in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United State" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Congress has authorized military action against Al Queda, thus we have "declared war" on AQ. Regardless of his position he is still la legitimate war target. I don't think anybody is really doubting that he was a legitimate target. Congress has authorized military action against a broad group of people and not just Al Qeada. You could argue that the AUMF gives Obama to go after poppy based drug users, but if he started dropping bombs on homes around Washington DC, I think people would, rightfully, complain. I think it is realistic to ask if the present situation, including the AUMF, gives the President to much power. I'll also point out that Congress can't pass a law saying the President can violate your Constitutional rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 That act seems to authorize force against those that were involved with planning and executing the 9/11 attacks. Was this guy involved in 9/11? What little I've heard seems to indicate that he wasn't influential in Al Queda until after the attacks. If he wasn't involved in 9/11, then we can't really use this legislation as justification for the assassination, can we? Better reread that.It clearly authorizes force against Nations, Organizations and persons. You seem to have overlooked the nations and organizations bit. Bottomline, if one is member of Al Qaeda, which Al Awlaki clearly was, he can be targetted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Authorized use of force does not equal declared war. No declaration of war has been congressionally approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Authorized use of force does not equal declared war. No declaration of war has been congressionally approved. But the manner of the differences does not really matter in this case.....killing the enemy,and the designation of them has been approved. If anything the AUMF in this case gives more lattitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 But the manner of the differences does not really matter in this case.....killing the enemy,and the designation of them has been approved.If anything the AUMF in this case gives more lattitude No, in fact it matter a great deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 But the manner of the differences does not really matter in this case.....killing the enemy,and the designation of them has been approved.If anything the AUMF in this case gives more lattitude Congress doesn't have the authority to give the President the power to violate your right to due process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Congress doesn't have the authority to give the President the power to violate your right to due process. Since when is due process a military requirement? Do you have a right to due process if you are deemed a threat or the enemy? The right of self defense trumps due process every day of the week in the civilian world(much less in military)....you are of course free to question the judgment exercised. Just like other back seat drivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Since when is due process a military requirement?Do you have a right to due process if you are deemed a threat or the enemy? The right of self defense trumps due process every day of the week in the civilian world(much less in military)....you are of course free to question the judgment exercised. Just like other back seat drivers Deemed a threat and/or the enemy by whom? Does Obama have the authority to drop bombs on the homes of suspected opium-based drug drug users/sellers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Deemed a threat and/or the enemy by whom?Does Obama have the authority to drop bombs on the homes of suspected opium-based drug drug users/sellers? Yes, and we have....but you probably mean in the US? (in which case bullets are usually used if they are deemed a threat (Weaver).....or burned out as in the case of the Davidians) He was officially targeted a yr or more ago for kill or capture, plenty of time for him to avail himself of due process by surrendering to authorities. He was deemed a ongoing threat,which in my world either surrenders or is removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Yes, and we have....but you probably mean in the US? (in which case bullets are usually used if they are deemed a threat (Weaver).....or burned out as in the case of the Davidians)He was officially targeted a yr or more ago for kill or capture, plenty of time for him to avail himself of due process by surrendering to authorities. He was deemed a ongoing threat,which in my world either surrenders or is removed. The Davidians burned themselves out. The ATF at least as consistently claimed that they (the ATF) didn't start the fire. The actions on Ruby Ridge are generally considered unconstitutional: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#Aftermath "Both the internal 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force Report and the public 1995 Senate subcommittee report on Ruby Ridge criticized the rules of engagement as unconstitutional. A 1995 GAO report on use of force by federal law enforcement agencies stated: "In October 1995, Treasury and Justice adopted use of deadly force policies to standardize the various policies their component agencies had adopted over the years." The major change was the requirement of a reasonable belief of an "imminent" danger of death or serious physical injury, which brought all federal LEA deadly force policies in line with US Supreme Court rulings (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 18 (1985) and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)) that applied to state and local LE agencies." The Constitution doesn't REQUIRE that you do anything to avail yourself to due process. It is your RIGHT; not an obligation or responsibility. The government doesn't have the authority to shoot to kill any and all bail jumpers, even if they are suspected for murder, treason, or other capital crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 The Constitution doesn't REQUIRE that you do anything to avail yourself to due process. It is your RIGHT; not an obligation or responsibility. The government doesn't have the authority to shoot to kill any and all jail jumpers, even if they are suspected for murder, treason, or other capital crimes. The Constitution allows for the use of deadly force for self defense and to ensure the safety of the population...both military and in law enforcement Civilian law enforcement not being real relevant in this case since it is a military and foreign service op There is NO right to due process if ya are dead....His Dad can try again though :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.