Assassinating Americans?

[NathanMuir]

There was an interesting opinion piece (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/assassinating-americans-killing-the-constitution/?hp) on the NY Times site today.

It's seems simliar to the plot of 'The Bourne Ultimatum' for those of you who don't want to read the entire article. It talks about the policy of assassinating American citizens who are deemed to be combatants of the US.

Here's a couple of paragraphs that introduce the basis and argument of the piece:

It all began last Wednesday with a couple of stray paragraphs near the end of a Washington Post article by Dana Priest on counterterrorism efforts in Yemen:

'After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,” said one former intelligence official. The Obama administration has adopted the same stance.'

“Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens,” was the understandable response from Salon’s Glenn Greenwald. “But combat is not what we’re talking about here. The people on this ‘hit list’ are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities.” That’s just the beginning, he thinks:

'More critically still, the Obama administration — like the Bush administration before it — defines the “battlefield” as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That’s quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.'


Some of you know my positions when it comes to national security. I really don't see a problem with this policy overseas. Chances are if a American citizen is somewhere in the Middle East and they're not working for an aid group or for the government and there is evidence that supports the conclusion that they're actively engaged in attacking the US, then by all means they should be dealt with accordingly.

However, I think that real problem presents itself when you start enacting this policy domestically. I have no idea how you could do this domestically without it getting extremely messy, but nonetheless I support this policy. I wouldn't be surprised if they have already done this domestically, in which case, I'm glad they've found a way to do this effectively.

[leekohler]

I don't. If they are that big of a problem and there's enough evidence, arrest and try them. I can't believe anyone would support this kind of action against our own citizens in our own country. This is absolute insanity and goes against everything this country stands for.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush & Cheney used 911 to trample the Constitution of the United States this is no surprise meanwhile Bin Laden is still sending out messages.....:rolleyes:Horrible administration and we will be paying for years for all three of these sob's.

[Badandy]

Some of you know my positions when it comes to national security. I really don't see a problem with this policy overseas. Chances are if a American citizen is somewhere in the Middle East and they're not working for an aid group or for the government and there is evidence that supports the conclusion that they're actively engaged in attacking the US, then by all means they should be dealt with accordingly.

However, I think that real problem presents itself when you start enacting this policy domestically. I have no idea how you could do this domestically without it getting extremely messy, but nonetheless I support this policy. I wouldn't be surprised if they have already done this domestically, in which case, I'm glad they've found a way to do this effectively.

This is maniacal. I can understand if an American citizen is on the front lines of some insurgency and gets killed by US forces in a gunfight against insurgents, but actively placing kill orders on US citizens without due process? That is against the Constitution.

I live close to Compton, California, one of the worst crime neighborhoods in the US. What if I'm there, someone doesn't *think* I have a valid reason to be there, and there's "evidence" I'm up to no good? Can they just throw me in jail and not give a reason? No, there's a trial. The US Government is not infallible. Similarly, juries are not infallible but at least putting someone through due process ensures their rights as citizens of a country that has lost hundreds of thousands of servicemen to protect those very rights.

[Desertrat]

While I follow your point, Badandy, it's irrelevant. What's at issue is, "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests..."

The bothersome point is "mission creep". I'd worry about middle-management, with possibly the tacit approval from above, lowering the threshold from some level of observation and evidence to mere opinion.

Think "enemies list". After all, we already have Ms. Incompetano listing Tea Party protesters, southern Christians and returning members of the military as potential domestic terrorist and right-wing extremists.

[leekohler]

While I follow your point, Badandy, it's irrelevant. What's at issue is, "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests..."

The bothersome point is "mission creep". I'd worry about middle-management, with possibly the tacit approval from above, lowering the threshold from some level of observation and evidence to mere opinion.

Think "enemies list". After all, we already have Ms. Incompetano listing Tea Party protesters, southern Christians and returning members of the military as potential domestic terrorist and right-wing extremists.

And when Bush was in charge it was a different group of people. I'll give you a few guesses as to who.

It doesn't matter who's targeted. What matters is that anyone is targeted at all. This is absolutely insane.

[Badandy]

While I follow your point, Badandy, it's irrelevant. What's at issue is, "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests..."

I don't see how it's irrelevant. Evidence of having met that "certain, defined threshold" needs to be argued in front of a judge, in court.

[bradl]

There was an interesting opinion piece (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/assassinating-americans-killing-the-constitution/?hp) on the Times site today.

It's seems simliar to the plot of 'The Bourne Ultimatum' for those of you who don't want to read the entire article. It talks about the policy of assassinating American citizens who are deemed to be combatants of the US.

Here's a couple of paragraphs that introduce the basis and argument of the piece:



Some of you know my positions when it comes to national security. I really don't see a problem with this policy overseas. Chances are if a American citizen is somewhere in the Middle East and they're not working for an aid group or for the government and there is evidence that supports the conclusion that they're actively engaged in attacking the US, then by all means they should be dealt with accordingly.

However, I think that real problem presents itself when you start enacting this policy domestically. I have no idea how you could do this domestically without it getting extremely messy, but nonetheless I support this policy. I wouldn't be surprised if they have already done this domestically, in which case, I'm glad they've found a way to do this effectively.

Then, by your own admission, the entire US Military should have been court marshalled for violating a direct order from its Commander-in-Chief (per Section II of the Constitution). John Walker Lindh is still living, and thanks to due process (his right, per that same Constitution), he only gets 20 years in prison.

Your own logic fails, as well as proves the failure of this piece.

No soldier in the US military (and I repeat, NO Soldier) would ever take or carry out the order to do this, with the conditions mentioned in this piece. And we wonder why articles like this, and people like you going along with it are causing the polarization we have in this country.. all of it based on fear and paranoia.

BL.

[Desertrat]

Trouble is, most of us grew up with the idea that "war" is a condition which exists between identifiable nations and within certain boundaries of behavior. That idea, however, is right in there with dinosaurs and dodos.

Today's reality is that non-governmental groups have gathered together in coalitions which in their own minds are indeed at war against us. They keep saying that at every opportunity. It doesn't matter what any of us think. They get a chance at you, you're gonna die.

Some on our side figure it's better to go on and kill them while they're in the planning stage, rather than wait until after some poor bastard's head has been haggled off while being video-taped for your evening enjoyment on Al Jazeera TV.

[Abstract]

The people on this ‘hit list’ are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities.”

I'm sorry, but that's insane. Your government technically can't do this to anyone who's non-American, and I don't see how it makes any more sense to do it to your own people. If the evidence reaches this threshold that they speak of, then arrest him/her and have him/her stand trial. More evidence should translate into a stronger argument during trial. Nobody should be allowed to decide the fate of somebody's life without trial.

From the article, it sounds like you would need the permission of the President to assassinate a specific person or group of people. I don't see why this would make anyone feel better about it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its the old govt tactic of we accuse you therefore you are guilty and we can do anything, history has repeated this one a millions times.

[NathanMuir]

No soldier in the US military (and I repeat, NO Soldier) would ever take or carry out the order to do this, with the conditions mentioned in this piece. And we wonder why articles like this, and people like you going along with it are causing the polarization we have in this country.. all of it based on fear and paranoia.

BL.

You really think that the military would be trusted to carry out an operation on this scale and depth? I feel certian that the Special Activities Division (or similiar body) would be tasked to carry out an operation like this.

[Peterkro]

Just for info the article is in the New York Times not The Times.

[bradl]

You really think that the military would be trusted to carry out an operation on this scale and depth? I feel certian that the Special Activities Division (or similiar body) would be tasked to carry out an operation like this.

You miss the point. You are advocating killing your own people without due process, by order of a Commander-in-Chief. In knowing that such an order for charges not brought out through due process is against the US Constitution (which would protect the people from such an order from the government), in violating that order, this 'Special Activities Division' would fall under the same court marshal in by disobeying said order. Same point applies with Lindh. It fails, and your logic behind it fails, your stance behind it fails, and the opinion piece fails.

BL.

[NathanMuir]

Just for info the article is in the New York Times not The Times.

I'm aware of that. I've heard it refered to in various forms of shorthand.

[NathanMuir]

You miss the point. You are advocating killing your own people without due process, by order of a Commander-in-Chief. In knowing that such an order for charges not brought out through due process is against the US Constitution (which would protect the people from such an order from the government), in violating that order, this 'Special Activities Division' would fall under the same court marshal in by disobeying said order. Same point applies with Lindh. It fails, and your logic behind it fails, your stance behind it fails, and the opinion piece fails.

BL.

Given that SAD is a division of the CIA, they don't have the same cares or standards of the Military, and these people will never see the inside of a courtroom.

You make it sound like I said this policy should be used against anyone who says something bad about America, which is far from the truth.

I can only see this policy being used in extreme cases.

[leekohler]

Given that SAD is a division of the CIA, they don't have the same cares or standards of the Military, and these people will never see the inside of a courtroom.

You make it sound like I said this policy should be used against anyone who says something bad about America, which is far from the truth.

I can only see this policy being used in extreme cases.

Uh huh. How long before oops! Wrong guy!? And how long before someone starts using this against political enemies? This should not be happening. If there's enough evidence to kill someone, there's enough evidence to arrest, try and convict them.

[niuniu]

Look what's the problem. These intelligence guys know what they're doing. If they think someone is a threat - that person is a threat.

































































And if they think there's weapons of mass destruction...

[NathanMuir]

Uh huh. How long before oops! Wrong guy!? And how long before someone starts using this against political enemies? This should not be happening. If there's enough evidence to kill someone, there's enough evidence to arrest, try and convict them.

Eh, then it's unfortunate. The pros out weight the cons. Though given the circumstances I mentioned earlier, I doubt there would be that many mistakes.

The whole political thing seems unlikely given that the CIA wouldn't brief congressmen/ women that would be able to disclose this information without exposing themselves as the leak and thus ending their careers. I don't know about you, but I don't hate anyone enought to end my career over it.

I'd rather they save some my tax money and just kill that person out right. I don't want to pay to feed, house and try them.

[scottness]

Eh, then it's unfortunate. The pros out weight the cons. Though given the circumstances I mentioned earlier, I doubt there would be that many mistakes.

The whole political thing seems unlikely given that the CIA wouldn't brief congressmen/ women that would be able to disclose this information without exposing themselves as the leak and thus ending their careers. I don't know about you, but I don't hate anyone enought to end my career over it.

I'd rather they save some my tax money and just kill that person out right. I don't want to pay to feed, house and try them.

After a while, the politicians with a lust for power will corrupt this practice just like most everything else they get their hands on. Let's not deny our citizens their privileges until conviction. As for foreign enemy combatants... I feel differently.

I'm glad you're not in power.

[miloblithe]

I really don't see a problem with this policy overseas. Chances are if a American citizen is somewhere in the Middle East and they're not working for an aid group or for the government and there is evidence that supports the conclusion that they're actively engaged in attacking the US, then by all means they should be dealt with accordingly.

No possibility of going to the Middle East on business, or to visit family, or as a tourist, or any number of other reasons?

[flopticalcube]

No possibility of going to the Middle East on business, or to visit family, or as a tourist, or any number of other reasons?
Anyone who has family outside the US is not a Real American and, therefore, should die.

[yojitani]

No possibility of going to the Middle East on business, or to visit family, or as a tourist, or any number of other reasons?

Yeah, I didn't get this point either. I know several US citizens who live or have lived in various middle eastern countries because of business or family. It's not like the US doesn't have many economic interests in the M.E. Even Osama bin Laden could tell you that! :D

[FX120]

Eh, then it's unfortunate. The pros out weight the cons. Though given the circumstances I mentioned earlier, I doubt there would be that many mistakes.

The whole political thing seems unlikely given that the CIA wouldn't brief congressmen/ women that would be able to disclose this information without exposing themselves as the leak and thus ending their careers. I don't know about you, but I don't hate anyone enought to end my career over it.

I'd rather they save some my tax money and just kill that person out right. I don't want to pay to feed, house and try them.

This same ideology could be applied to other areas, including our own domestic justice system in "the name of efficiency", and then I think we'd all be up in arms about it.

When a small group of people with little to no oversight have the power to start executing people without trial, that is flat out wrong and can only lead to further abuse of power.

No one should trust their government to that extent. What can start as good intentions are often soon blurred by power and greed.

[Badandy]

I'd rather they save some my tax money and just kill that person out right. I don't want to pay to feed, house and try them.

Good to know. You also probably know, without a doubt, whether the latest alleged murderer on the evening news is guilty, right? Why let a trial drag on anyway? Let's kill 'em outright!

[Ttownbeast]

This whole thread should wind up on crank dot net

[NathanMuir]

No possibility of going to the Middle East on business, or to visit family, or as a tourist, or any number of other reasons?

Did you bother to read any of my previous posts?

[NathanMuir]

Good to know. You also probably know, without a doubt, whether the latest alleged murderer on the evening news is guilty, right? Why let a trial drag on anyway? Let's kill 'em outright!

I know right?!

:rolleyes:

[bradl]

Given that SAD is a division of the CIA, they don't have the same cares or standards of the Military, and these people will never see the inside of a courtroom.

You make it sound like I said this policy should be used against anyone who says something bad about America, which is far from the truth.

I can only see this policy being used in extreme cases.

Just following your logic. From TFA:


“Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens,” was the understandable response from Salon’s Glenn Greenwald. “But combat is not what we’re talking about here. The people on this ‘hit list’ are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities.”


Your response:


However, I think that real problem presents itself when you start enacting this policy domestically. I have no idea how you could do this domestically without it getting extremely messy, but nonetheless I support this policy. I wouldn't be surprised if they have already done this domestically, in which case, I'm glad they've found a way to do this effectively.


Bold for emphasis. The point is that this shouldn't be done or even thought of at all! If one is an American resident or citizen, they have every right to go about their lives in this country, making a life for themselves and their family. So sayeth our very own Declaration of Independence:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Nice to know that you support the violation of everything the founding fathers of this country fought for.

You have just advocated for killing fellow Americans for doing things benign, such as driving to home/work, going out to eat, taking their kids to some activity, etc. etc., without cause and without due process except for being on some hit list. That is absolutely sick and disgusting.

I have to agree with the others. I am completely estatic that you are not in any sort of power or elected office in this country.

BL.

[NathanMuir]

Just following your logic. From TFA:



Your response:



Bold for emphasis. The point is that this shouldn't be done or even thought of at all! If one is an American resident or citizen, they have every right to go about their lives in this country, making a life for themselves and their family. So sayeth our very own Declaration of Independence:



Nice to know that you support the violation of everything the founding fathers of this country fought for.

You have just advocated for killing fellow Americans for doing things benign, such as driving to home/work, going out to eat, taking their kids to some activity, etc. etc., without cause and without due process except for being on some hit list. That is absolutely sick and disgusting.

I have to agree with the others. I am completely estatic that you are not in any sort of power or elected office in this country.

BL.

Following your logic then, these people should be allowed to actively engage in activities against their so called country men? You really think that the framers would want protections for those who conspire to kill their compatriots?

Surely you don't believe that?

I think that its funny how you choose to ignore pervious statments that I've have made on this matter on the limits of this type of power. Why dont you go back and reread what I've said/ posted?

[bradl]

Following your logic then, these people should be allowed to actively engage in activities against their so called country men? You really think that the framers would want protections for those who conspire to kill their compatriots?


Actively engage does not equal driving kids home, sleeping, going to/from work, going out to eat, etc. You simply can not draw a conclusion to 'hit list, kill them before they kill us' from something benign as that. Plus, you still have no evidence of them doing anything. Plus with them being American residents/citizens, they are granted due process by the US Constitution, and the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the Constitution.

In short, you can not do it without denying due process. You must arrest them, try them and convict them. Anything else, is WRONG, and the POTUS, nor orders made by him as CiC is not above such law.


Surely you don't believe that?


I most certainly do. The US Constitution was created, in most part, to protect the people from the government. This policy, that you support, is the very reason why we are protected from it. You do realize that in effect, you are supporting marshal law, right?

I'll be frank: You can not do this without violating the American Citizen's/American Resident's right to due process, including right to a speedy trial, and right to a jury. It's the law, and was written that way since 1791.


I think that its funny how you choose to ignore pervious statments that I've have made on this matter on the limits of this type of power. Why dont you go back and reread what I've said/ posted?

I have:


I'd rather they save some my tax money and just kill that person out right. I don't want to pay to feed, house and try them.



I feel certian that the Special Activities Division (or similiar body) would be tasked to carry out an operation like this.



Given that SAD is a division of the CIA, they don't have the same cares or standards of the Military, and these people will never see the inside of a courtroom.

You make it sound like I said this policy should be used against anyone who says something bad about America, which is far from the truth.

I can only see this policy being used in extreme cases.


My point still stands. I'm glad you aren't in elected office, or any position of power.

BL.

[miloblithe]

Did you bother to read any of my previous posts?

Which previous posts? Ones in other threads? No, I'm not out to be a NathanMuir scholar.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where you acknowledge that the vast majority of people traveling abroad are doing so for legal, innocuous reasons. Your first post in this thread seems to say that odds are Americans who travel to the Middle East are up to no good, which is a ridiculous statement. So I'm ridiculing it.

[Eraserhead]

While I follow your point, Badandy, it's irrelevant. What's at issue is, "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests..."

What happens if people who live in the countryside with guns were considered to be people against US interests?

Today's reality is that non-governmental groups have gathered together in coalitions which in their own minds are indeed at war against us. They keep saying that at every opportunity

That's because when they say that the Americans get all scared and pervert their country more obviously than before.

Osama Bin Laden keeps on winning without having to leave his cave - its so tragic.

[NathanMuir]

Which previous posts? Ones in other threads? No, I'm not out to be a NathanMuir scholar.

Please, I don't think that anyone thinks that highly of you.

Yes, I was refering to posts in this thread. :rolleyes:

I guess common sense it pretty rare these days.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where you acknowledge that the vast majority of people traveling abroad are doing so for legal, innocuous reasons. Your first post in this thread seems to say that odds are Americans who travel to the Middle East are up to no good, which is a ridiculous statement. So I'm ridiculing it.

This is what I've said about American citizens traveling in the Middle East:

Chances are if a American citizen is somewhere in the Middle East and they're not working for an aid group or for the government and there is evidence that supports the conclusion that they're actively engaged in attacking the US, then by all means they should be dealt with accordingly.

You make it sound like I said this policy should be used against anyone who says something bad about America, which is far from the truth.

I can only see this policy being used in extreme cases.

So is it an extreme case to go to the Middle East on business? To visit family? To go on vacation? I don't think so but I guess a majority of this board believes so.

[NathanMuir]

Actively engage does not equal driving kids home, sleeping, going to/from work, going out to eat, etc. You simply can not draw a conclusion to 'hit list, kill them before they kill us' from something benign as that. Plus, you still have no evidence of them doing anything. Plus with them being American residents/citizens, they are granted due process by the US Constitution, and the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the Constitution.

So you must be the person who took my comparison to The Bourne Ultimatum at face value and didn't bother to read the article. Otherwise you wouldn't be making this argument.

This speaks to the nature of the person who is actively engaged in plans to attack America. They are not off on some foreign battlefield where we don't have to look at them or walk beside them, they are here and seem to have a lifestyle similiar to ours, except a majority of us don't want to attack our own country.


In short, you can not do it without denying due process. You must arrest them, try them and convict them. Anything else, is WRONG, and the POTUS, nor orders made by him as CiC is not above such law.

I most certainly do. The US Constitution was created, in most part, to protect the people from the government. This policy, that you support, is the very reason why we are protected from it. You do realize that in effect, you are supporting marshal law, right?

I'll be frank: You can not do this without violating the American Citizen's/American Resident's right to due process, including right to a speedy trial, and right to a jury. It's the law, and was written that way since 1791.

BL.

I wish I had as much blind faith as you do in the working of our laws and our government.

Certian things just have to be done.

[abijnk]

I guess common sense it pretty rare these days.

You've done quite an effective job at proving that.

[skunk]

Certain things just have to be done.Is that the Bourne Exculpation?

[rhett7660]

I don't. If they are that big of a problem and there's enough evidence, arrest and try them. I can't believe anyone would support this kind of action against our own citizens in our own country. This is absolute insanity and goes against everything this country stands for.

Agree.... this is kind of a WTF moment. Really???

[colourfastt]

A couple thousand people are using guerrilla tactics against us, therefore we must give up all our ethics, morals, and civil liberties in order to be safe.

[bradl]

So you must be the person who took my comparison to The Bourne Ultimatum at face value and didn't bother to read the article. Otherwise you wouldn't be making this argument.


No. I have heard of the movie, but never watched it. I actually have had better (read: more important) things to do in my life.


This speaks to the nature of the person who is actively engaged in plans to attack America. They are not off on some foreign battlefield where we don't have to look at them or walk beside them, they are here and seem to have a lifestyle similiar to ours, except a majority of us don't want to attack our own country.



I find it absolutely sick that you would deprive a resident/citizen of this country of the same rights and process that King George deprived the Founders of this country, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Some excerpts from that very document, which I now know you have never read:


Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.



Nice to know that you'd be just happy with another King George.

If people are here and are legally a resident or are a citizen of this country, they are entitled to the VERY SAME RIGHTS AS YOU, as granted by the United States Constitution. What part of that do you fail to understand, besides ALL of it?

That's how the law is, plain and simple. If YOU don't like it, you are more than welcome to leave this country, and renounce your residency and citizenship.


I wish I had as much blind faith as you do in the working of our laws and our government.

Certian things just have to be done.

And as I have quoted to you before, being the History Major you are, Ben Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Glad to know that you fall under that category of people, and that you would take your undeserved liberty and safety at the expense of your fellow people. That is sick and disgusting.

BL.

[miloblithe]

I really don't see a problem with this policy overseas. Chances are if a American citizen is somewhere in the Middle East and they're not working for an aid group or for the government and there is evidence that supports the conclusion that they're actively engaged in attacking the US, then by all means they should be dealt with accordingly.

The way I read this is that Americans who are traveling somewhere in the Middle East for any reason other than working for the government or an aid group are somehow suspect. Otherwise, what does "chances are" in what you wrote mean?

Obviously you're saying that there needs to be some evidence of them being engaged in attacking the U.S. for them to be murdered, but one issue I have with what you wrote is that, looking at the way you wrote what you wrote, it reads that any American traveling to the Middle East (but not other regions?) for any reason other than working for the government or an aid group is automatically a suspect. For that matter, why aren't people working for the government or aid groups potential suspects? The way you wrote what you wrote, it seems like they are above suspicion.

Now, do I really think what you literally wrote is what you believe? Not really, but I think it betrays something in your thinking that you're overly willing to assume that people who are doing very normal things are up to no good and deserve to be monitored and then, based on some unclear process of determining their presumed guilt, exterminated.

[NathanMuir]

I find it absolutely sick that you would deprive a resident/citizen of this country of the same rights and process that King George deprived the Founders of this country, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Some excerpts from that very document, which I now know you have never read:

I find it absolutly sick that you would give a traitor any rights.

As for the whole historical document thing you have going on, I believe that these documents are living documents that can be adapted to circumstances as times change and society evolves.

If people are here and are legally a resident or are a citizen of this country, they are entitled to the VERY SAME RIGHTS AS YOU, as granted by the United States Constitution. What part of that do you fail to understand, besides ALL of it?

That's how the law is, plain and simple. If YOU don't like it, you are more than welcome to leave this country, and renounce your residency and citizenship.

BL.

I am not debating that these traitors have rights, I'm saying that when you take up arms against your country you should no longer get the benefits. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Eraserhead]

I find it absolutly sick that you would give a traitor any rights.

What if you were considered the traitor? And besides you don't know they are a traitor until they've been tried in a court of law.

[Badandy]

What if you were considered the traitor? And besides you don't know they are a traitor until they've been tried in a court of law.

He doesn't get that for some reason. They're only alleged traitors until they've been given due process. The whole point of due process is that it's the most accurate and fair way we have of determining guilt. Not just probable suspicion.

[colourfastt]

He doesn't get that for some reason. They're only alleged traitors until they've been given due process. The whole point of due process is that it's the most accurate and fair way we have of determining guilt. Not just probable suspicion.

Like most cops I know ... once you're their suspect, you're automatically guilty and are not entitled to the judicial process.

[bradl]

I find it absolutly sick that you would give a traitor any rights.


It isn't me giving any 'traitor' any rights. The Resident/Citizen is granted those rights under the constitution. Besides, what the hell gives you the right to judge said people? Certainly not the Constitution. Here's a concept that was also granted by the Constitution that you fail to comprehend: innocent until proven guilty. If someone was actually found to be doing this domestically, you have no evidence to support that they have done this, and by law, that evidence has to be presented to them (5th Amendment), by their accuser (6th Amendment) in a court of law, with a jury present (7th Amendment). These are granted per the Bill of Rights.

So I say again. Any accused are innocent until proven guilty. Not Guilty until proven innocent; Innocent. Until. PROVEN. Guilty.


As for the whole historical document thing you have going on, I believe that these documents are living documents that can be adapted to circumstances as times change and society evolves.


The US Constitution is a living document, yes. But you will be hard-pressed to find anyone wanting to repeal any part of the Bill of Rights; case in point: NRA and the 2nd Amendment; PATRIOT Act and its violations of the 4th Amendment.

But you will not find anyone who would be willing to repeal a person's right to trial, due process, and trial by Jury. King George of Britain did that in the 1770s, and look at what happened to him. You would be put out to pasture before anything like what you are supporting would occur.


I am not debating that these traitors have rights, I'm saying that when you take up arms against your country you should no longer get the benefits. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Tell that to John Walker Lindh. By his right of being an American Citizen, he was entitled to those rights. Tell that to Timothy McVeigh. He was entitled to those rights as an American Citizen. Tell that to Phil Spector. Tell that to Squeaky Fromme. James Earl Ray. Aaron Burr. The Crips and Bloods. The guy who kidnapped Jaycee Lee Duggard. The list goes on and on and on.

What you are suggesting is that anyone who commits a felony crime, such as kidnapping, murder, assault, etc. (which all could fall under terrorism), are to no longer be recipient of the benefits granted to them by the Constitution. Without due process, that completely smacks of fear-based McCarthyism, bordering on paranoid fascism.

Like I said. I'm glad you're not in any sort of power or elected office, for your support of this completely dumps on our laws. You may as well take our Constitution and wipe someone's backside with it as they're done using the restroom.

BL.

[NathanMuir]

What if you were considered the traitor? And besides you don't know they are a traitor until they've been tried in a court of law.

I am absolutly amazed at how willing you all are to bend over and follow the law to a 'T'.

I am like wise glad that you all are not in a position of power at the federal level. But who knows... maybe one of you is Holder who likes to give rights to every terrorist that crosses our boarders....

[dmr727]

It appears the OP has been reading a lot of Vince Flynn lately.

[NathanMuir]

It appears the OP has been reading a lot of Vince Flynn lately.

In all seriousness, I do read Vince Flynn. Love his books. Things would be a lot better if we implemented some of the policies described in his books.

But then again, who knows? Maybe we do and we just don't know it...

[hulugu]

...However, I think that real problem presents itself when you start enacting this policy domestically. I have no idea how you could do this domestically without it getting extremely messy, but nonetheless I support this policy.....

Well, what's the difference really? If the CIA "knows" the subject is guilty, why let national borders get in the way?

Good to know. You also probably know, without a doubt, whether the latest alleged murderer on the evening news is guilty, right? Why let a trial drag on anyway? Let's kill 'em outright!

Right, there's no way this will go horribly wrong. The CIA especially has never been wrong about anything.

...Osama Bin Laden keeps on winning without having to leave his cave - its so tragic.

Actually, I doubt Bin Laden is in a cave. Rather he's probably hunkered down in some villa in North Pakistan, eating lamb and sleeping in clean sheets. Oh and he's probably reading the NY Times online and laughing his ass off.

In all seriousness, I do read Vince Flynn. Love his books. Things would be a lot better if we implemented some of the policies described in his books.

But then again, who knows? Maybe we do and we just don't know it...

You do know Vince Flynn is in the "fiction" section. You know where they put the books about vampires?

While I follow your point, Badandy, it's irrelevant. What's at issue is, "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests..."

The bothersome point is "mission creep". I'd worry about middle-management, with possibly the tacit approval from above, lowering the threshold from some level of observation and evidence to mere opinion.

Think "enemies list". After all, we already have Ms. Incompetano listing Tea Party protesters, southern Christians and returning members of the military as potential domestic terrorist and right-wing extremists.

I agree and that's why I completely befuddled by your later defense of such a program. It's assassination of American citizens without trial or jury, without a hearing or any kind of oversight. It's rife for corruption and support for the very worst kind of fascism.
If I can legally kill you in Italy or Afghanistan, what is the US border but a little line of a map? And, then does it really matter?

[bradl]

I am absolutly amazed at how willing you all are to bend over and follow the law to a 'T'.


Laws are paramount in this case. We the people have elected officials to legislate and create laws for us to follow. The executive Branch passes those laws. The Judiciary branch interprets the laws as constitutional/legal or not. We follow those laws. If we violate those laws we are held accountable for it by judge and jury. are found in breach of those laws, we are punished for it. That is how this country works. No-one is above the law; not you, not me, not a gangsta, a mayor, a governor, a judge, nor Congress, and certainly not the POTUS. none of us are.


What you are suggesting is pure anarchy, based on evidence that you may or may not have that may or may not be true. For what you are suggesting to be justified, you need to PROVE that you are right and they are wrong. Innocent until proven guilty.


I am like wise glad that you all are not in a position of power at the federal level. But who knows... maybe one of you is Holder who likes to give rights to every terrorist that crosses our boarders....

Per your logic, those who are terrorists already live in these borders. McVeigh was born/raised in New York. Nice set of borders he had to cross.

Terry Nichols was born and raised in Michigan. Nice set of borders he had to cross too, eh? :rolleyes:

James Earl Ray was born and raised in Illinois. I wonder how far he had to run to sneak into this country.. :rolleyes:

Squeaky Fromme, Manson cult, Branch Davidians.. they had a hell of a long way to run to cross the border into this country. Oh wait... :rolleyes:

You are not judge, jury, and executioner in this country. We have a system that does that. But it is nice to see that you support anarchy against your fellow citizens.

Judging by your surname (assuming Muir is your surname), who are we to think that your ancestors, your parents, or even you aren't up to snuff per this article? By your support in this, it could be said that we should rub you or your family out. You are supporting anarchy, and Americans are against that, you know; related to terrorism.


Would you be offended if I took you or your family out? honest question here. Unless you're a copy of InTheNet, I respectfully request an answer.

BL.

[NathanMuir]

Judging by your surname (assuming Muir is your surname), who are we to think that your ancestors, your parents, or even you aren't up to snuff per this article? By your support in this, it could be said that we should rub you or your family out. You are supporting anarchy, and Americans are against that, you know; related to terrorism.


Would you be offended if I took you or your family out? honest question here. Unless you're a copy of InTheNet, I respectfully request an answer.
BL.

IMDB 'Spy Game'. That's where my names comes from.

If you think that I was engaged in treasonsy (yes I am very drunk and cant spell.) Then by all means take me out. Though I doubt that you would be able to assemble enough evidence to. Good luck.

[skunk]

IMDB 'Spy Game'. That's where my names comes from.

If you think that I was engaged in treasonsy (yes I am very drunk and cant spell.) Then by all means take me out. Though I doubt that you would be able to assemble enough evidence to. Good luck.

Who needs evidence? Reasonable grounds for suspicion is enough.

[NathanMuir]

Who needs evidence? Reasonable grounds for suspicion is enough.

Exactly. I have a feeling you aren't serious though....

[bradl]

IMDB 'Spy Game'. That's where my names comes from.

If you think that I was engaged in treasonsy (yes I am very drunk and cant spell.) Then by all means take me out. Though I doubt that you would be able to assemble enough evidence to. Good luck.

Who needs evidence? Reasonable grounds for suspicion is enough.

Exactly. According to this and following it through to its end, all I would need is my fear and belief that you are doing something wrong, even though you aren't.

Also, you were saying that you'd doubt that I'd be able to assemble enough evidence to show that you're doing something wrong. That is my point. I'd need to show that you are doing something wrong, and prove that you are. Otherwise you aren't, and you are innocent. If I need the evidence to show that you are doing something wrong, it is absolute bollocks that you believe you don't need the evidence to show that someone else is doing something wrong. As you said, you can not have your cake and eat it too. You can't have it both ways; By your reckoning, if I believe you are doing something wrong, you don't deserve the benefits of the protections under the US Constitution.

BTW: nice little set of hypocrisy you set yourself into, isn't it?

BL.

[Eraserhead]

Actually, I doubt Bin Laden is in a cave. Rather he's probably hunkered down in some villa in North Pakistan, eating lamb and sleeping in clean sheets. Oh and he's probably reading the NY Times online and laughing his ass off.

Probably true. Wherever he is now he'll be laughing his ass off at the US.

Exactly. I have a feeling you aren't serious though....

Because it isn't. All sorts of people would be wrongly arrested and jailed if reasonable suspicion was enough.

That's why we have courts of law and a modern justice system to avoid such things.

I am absolutly amazed at how willing you all are to bend over and follow the law to a 'T'.

I am like wise glad that you all are not in a position of power at the federal level. But who knows... maybe one of you is Holder who likes to give rights to every terrorist that crosses our boarders....

I'm glad to see you prepared to give up an essential liberty because 4000 people were kill in New York nearly 10 years ago.

[Badandy]

Because it isn't. All sorts of people would be wrongly arrested and jailed if reasonable suspicion was enough.

That's why we have courts of law and a modern justice system to avoid such things.



I'm glad to see you prepared to give up an essential liberty because 4000 people were kill in New York nearly 10 years ago.

The Constitution is being pissed on by the group of people who are the self-proclaimed protectors of it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The Constitution is being pissed on by the group of people who are the self-proclaimed protectors of it.Its being widdled away all the time because its in the way of their political aspirations. Bush & and Gonzo and all those republican draft dodgers stomped all over the Constitution the very document they were sworn into office to defend. Democrats are no better. It was to protect us from a out of control Govt that we have today. Spending our grandchildrens $$$ before they are born is one fine example.

[hulugu]

Probably true. Wherever he is now he'll be laughing his ass off at the US....

I'm glad to see you prepared to give up an essential liberty because 4000 people were kill in New York nearly 10 years ago.

If Bin Laden could drink, I'm sure he'd be chin-deep in champagne. With one attack he's managed to get the US, the world's political equivalent of a grizzly bear, to flail madly about, snarling at everything and, though the biggest predator, shiver in fear

The Constitution is being pissed on by the group of people who are the self-proclaimed protectors of it.

Exactly. I get a distinct "newspeak" vibe when people say we're going to protect the Constitution by subverting it.