[awm]

It seems like there is a long tradition in the US of people who are "wanted, dead or alive"?

In most cases these people haven't been convicted in a court of law (because they haven't been successfully captured and tried) yet the evidence of their guilt is quite overwhelming and their continued criminal actions suggest that stopping them (even if by killing them) is preferable to letting them run loose. There were many examples of this in the "old west" (I think it's a staple of western movies) but the DC-area snipers might be a relatively recent example.

To some extent this violates due process, but when you have someone who has admitted publicly (producing propaganda videos even) to trying to kill Americans en masse and indicates that he will continue doing so, shooting that person might be viewed as a defensive act and preferable to trying to arrest them in many situations.

For another view... say you are a CIA agent who has infiltrated an Al Qaeda cell in the mid-east. Somehow you end up in a situation where you're alone in a room with Osama bin Laden, and you have a pistol with you. Your chances of "arresting" him and marching him out through the terrorist camp to justice are basically nil, but if you shoot him in the head you have a decent chance of even getting out alive. Do you really think an agent in this situation should spare the guy to "protect the rule of law"? Really?

[bid_em_up]

kenberg, on Apr 7 2010, 07:56 PM, said:

The account of the capture wasn't in the paper
But you know they hanged old Smack right there, instead of later
The people were quite pleased
The outlaw had been seized
And on the whole it was a very good year
For the undertaker

I doubt many people here are familiar with Smackwater Jack.

[shyams]

jdonn, on Apr 8 2010, 01:00 AM, said:

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship?

In my opinion, the answer to this question should be:
* No matter what someone does, it should be impossible for the State to revoke that person's citizenship.
* I guess historically, high treason would be enough reason for revoking citizenship.
* In the current world, naturalisation obtained by fraudulent methods can be a basis.
Barring these, it should be never -- the individual has rights to surrender, the State should not have rights to revoke.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 8 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 7 2010, 09:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)?

I couldn't answer your question because I do not know. I responded as I did because at first your question about citizenship seemed to me to be a reasonable argument. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that losing one's citizenship is still a punishment without due process - and yes, if we go down that road, where does it stop?

Who says there wouldn't be due process?

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Apr 8 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 8 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 7 2010, 09:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)?

I couldn't answer your question because I do not know. I responded as I did because at first your question about citizenship seemed to me to be a reasonable argument. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that losing one's citizenship is still a punishment without due process - and yes, if we go down that road, where does it stop?

Who says there wouldn't be due process?

He probably gets the same due process any wanted outlaw gets who has moved out of US territory but still threatens the lives of citizens within US territory. Let us not forget that the "war on terror" is actually a police/military action against outlaws. Any war is against a political state that willfully harbors and abets them.

[Winstonm]

awm, on Apr 8 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

It seems like there is a long tradition in the US of people who are "wanted, dead or alive"?

In most cases these people haven't been convicted in a court of law (because they haven't been successfully captured and tried) yet the evidence of their guilt is quite overwhelming and their continued criminal actions suggest that stopping them (even if by killing them) is preferable to letting them run loose. There were many examples of this in the "old west" (I think it's a staple of western movies) but the DC-area snipers might be a relatively recent example.

To some extent this violates due process, but when you have someone who has admitted publicly (producing propaganda videos even) to trying to kill Americans en masse and indicates that he will continue doing so, shooting that person might be viewed as a defensive act and preferable to trying to arrest them in many situations.

For another view... say you are a CIA agent who has infiltrated an Al Qaeda cell in the mid-east. Somehow you end up in a situation where you're alone in a room with Osama bin Laden, and you have a pistol with you. Your chances of "arresting" him and marching him out through the terrorist camp to justice are basically nil, but if you shoot him in the head you have a decent chance of even getting out alive. Do you really think an agent in this situation should spare the guy to "protect the rule of law"? Really?

I think you've been watching too much Jack Bauer.

First off, this individual has only been accused...big word...of any criminal wrongdoing. Second, the "proof" of criminal wrongdoing comes from our crackerjack intelligence agencies, who brought you that dynamite analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear ambitions, and ties to al-Qaeda.

And you really want to allow the President...without any hearing or court justification....to order the death of a citizen based on the same intelligence gathering that brought you the Iraq war....REALLY???

[Winstonm]

pooltuna, on Apr 8 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 8 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 8 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 7 2010, 09:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)?

I couldn't answer your question because I do not know. I responded as I did because at first your question about citizenship seemed to me to be a reasonable argument. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that losing one's citizenship is still a punishment without due process - and yes, if we go down that road, where does it stop?

Who says there wouldn't be due process?

He probably gets the same due process any wanted outlaw gets who has moved out of US territory but still threatens the lives of citizens within US territory. Let us not forget that the "war on terror" is actually a police/military action against outlaws. Any war is against a political state that willfully harbors and abets them.

So you are saying that any U.S. citizen accused of terrorism can be killed on the spot without a trial because it is a police action and not warfare? So now our police action is to kill accused without a trial as long as they have an Arabian-sounding name and have brown skin and our crackjack intelligence claims they are the bad guys - like all those Afghan wedding parties they target?

Is it now worthy of the death penalty to look like Omar Shariff and be accused of "Un-American" activies by the CIA?

Damn. I think you are right.

Good call. We should probably also amend the Constitution to rid ourselves of those pesky "rights" that get in the way of government-sanctioned murder.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Apr 8 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 8 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 7 2010, 09:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)?

I couldn't answer your question because I do not know. I responded as I did because at first your question about citizenship seemed to me to be a reasonable argument. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that losing one's citizenship is still a punishment without due process - and yes, if we go down that road, where does it stop?

Who says there wouldn't be due process?

I presumed that is what you meant - I may have presumed incorrectly.

[mike777]

The decision does seem to claim that the Prez can order the killing of a usa citizen in Yemen without a trial or a court order.

As others have mentioned we do have a history of capture, dead or alive for citizens here in the USA.

Nothing new here, I just think people forgot history.

-----------


As noted in many other threads it seems fine for the CIA to kill or kidnap or rough up people in other countries. They can provide training, money and arms to others to kill.

They just cannot waterboard or get hard intell on stuff like Iran nukes, berlin wall falling or need we say WMD.

[awm]

Well, I don't know the official story on this individual.

But a lot of the Al Qaeda leadership seems to make and distribute these videos where they claim "credit" for terrorist acts, and extort people to commit more terrorist acts and "kill Americans."

If someone has publicly (and proudly) stated involvement in terrorism and a desire to "do it again" then I don't think there is that much need for a trial -- he's basically admitted guilt! The key is to stop him from carrying out further crimes (which he proudly states his desire to do). In these types of cases it'd be great to apprehend the person, but better to kill them off than let them create another 9/11. It's like having a public confession -- is it really more important to make sure that someone who has already confessed to the crime and indicated he wants to do it again gets a fair trial, rather than prevent them from repeating the crime and killing more innocents?

This is a very different situation from people who "may or may not" be involved in terrorism, or people who have some peripheral involvement (like money laundering or whatever).

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 8 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 8 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

It seems like there is a long tradition in the US of people who are "wanted, dead or alive"?

In most cases these people haven't been convicted in a court of law (because they haven't been successfully captured and tried) yet the evidence of their guilt is quite overwhelming and their continued criminal actions suggest that stopping them (even if by killing them) is preferable to letting them run loose. There were many examples of this in the "old west" (I think it's a staple of western movies) but the DC-area snipers might be a relatively recent example.

To some extent this violates due process, but when you have someone who has admitted publicly (producing propaganda videos even) to trying to kill Americans en masse and indicates that he will continue doing so, shooting that person might be viewed as a defensive act and preferable to trying to arrest them in many situations.

For another view... say you are a CIA agent who has infiltrated an Al Qaeda cell in the mid-east. Somehow you end up in a situation where you're alone in a room with Osama bin Laden, and you have a pistol with you. Your chances of "arresting" him and marching him out through the terrorist camp to justice are basically nil, but if you shoot him in the head you have a decent chance of even getting out alive. Do you really think an agent in this situation should spare the guy to "protect the rule of law"? Really?

I think you've been watching too much Jack Bauer.

First off, this individual has only been accused...big word...of any criminal wrongdoing. Second, the "proof" of criminal wrongdoing comes from our crackerjack intelligence agencies, who brought you that dynamite analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear ambitions, and ties to al-Qaeda.

And you really want to allow the President...without any hearing or court justification....to order the death of a citizen based on the same intelligence gathering that brought you the Iraq war....REALLY???

It's different now. If Obama wants to do it, I'm sure he has a good reason.

[mike777]

Yes..many in the forums hated Bush for doing things for not good reasons......thank god Obama has good reasons.

[y66]

Lobowolf, on Apr 8 2010, 08:04 PM, said:

It's different now. If Obama wants to do it, I'm sure he has a good reason.

What is different now? The rationale for the policy or Obama's stance on the policy?

[blackshoe]

What's different is that it's Obama doing it.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Apr 8 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

What's different is that it's Obama doing it.

and he's ... well, he's just *better*, damn it

[gwnn]

Has Bush 43 ever done something like this? If not, when was the last time?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Apr 9 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 8 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

What's different is that it's Obama doing it.

and he's ... well, he's just *better*, damn it

Comment 1: Yes, Obama is "just *better*" than the shrub.

Bush (essentially) failed at everything he did...

His life story is one in which people handed him everything on a single platter. (Paid positions, companies, baseball teams, you name it). Almost everything he touched, turned to complete *****.

Eventually, some political operatives decided that a lazy, affable dolt with the right name would make for a malleable President. True to form, the Bush administration screwed over this country beyond belief...

An economic collapse that rivals the Great Depression
A trumped up invasion of the wrong country
Racking up obscene amounts of debt
Pissing off the entire international community

In contrast Obama

Raised himself from living in poverty to the Presidency
Has accomplished an amazing amount in his first year in office
Has a professional and academic record that anyone would be proud of

So, yes... Obama is just *better* than that piece of chicken fried *****...

Comment 2:

The fact that Obama is the one authorizing the assassination of US citizens by no means excuses whats going on.

I have infinitely more trust in Obama's judgment on these sorts of issues than I do Bush. However, I don't think that any President should be able to order the assassination of a US citizen. (Or authorize unrestricted wiretapping or a host of other policies that Obama is pursuing).

Even if I trusted Obama to use these tools wisely - and I'm not sure that I do - I certainly don't trust the yahoos who might come afterward.

[kenberg]

With regard to the order: I think it needs to be compared with, say, shooting someone holding hostages rather than attempting to arrest him. The characteristic feature is that it is not so uch an attempt to punish someone for what he allegedly has done, it's more an attempt to stop him from doing what there is good reason to believe that he is about to do.

That being said, there is good reason to keep the government on a very tight leash in such matters. I approve, and I suspect that most people approve, of using a sharpshooter to take out someone holding hostages at least when the assessment by a trained hostage rescue team believes that such an action stands the best chance of getting the hostages out alive. I do not approve, and I suspect most people do not approve, of letting the government kill someone because he has been labeled a terrorist or a mobster or a general nogoodnik. The action at hand lies somewhere in between, I think. To my mind, it more closely resembles the hostage situation.

As to the rule of law, I assume there are some laws related to the matter. Certainly there must be laws that protect the sharpshooter and the one who authorizes the action in a hostage situation. Since we are sort of still getting our act together on terrorism, maybe the law has not yet caught up here.

I don't trust governments. No one should. But if someone is trying to kill me I would like there to be some response other than prosecuting him after he does it.

[Winstonm]

awm, on Apr 8 2010, 07:24 PM, said:

Well, I don't know the official story on this individual.

If someone has publicly (and proudly) stated involvement in (Communism) and a desire to "do it again" then I don't think there is that much need for a trial -- he's basically admitted guilt! The key is to stop him from carrying out further crimes (which he proudly states his desire to do). In these types of cases it'd be great to apprehend the person, but better to kill them off than let them create another (East Berlin). It's like having a public confession -- is it really more important to make sure that someone who has already confessed to the crime and indicated he wants to do it again gets a fair trial, rather than prevent them from repeating the crime and killing more innocents?

This is a very different situation from people who "may or may not" be involved in (Communism), or people who have some peripheral involvement (like money laundering or whatever).

I fixed it for you Senator.

And Btw, this individual through his family has issued denial of involvement in crimes (communism).

Gee, whiz. Accusation and denial - sounds like a valid reason for a lynching.

[Winstonm]

emphasis added.

Quote

The characteristic feature is that it is not so uch an attempt to punish someone for what he allegedly has done, it's more an attempt to stop him from doing what there is good reason to believe that he is about to do.

So you are saying the President must have "probable cause" to murder a citizen....I wonder if the President is subject to RICO?