Herman Cain

[billt]

Bill, I don't think the question here is if he deserved to die or not.  The question is should the government be making that call based on no constitutional procedures or any type of review or set standards.  

They simply decided he needed to be Offed (and I agree he did) because of reasons of their own choosing.  I happen to agree with the reasons THIS time, but if they are allowed to pick the target based on their own secret reasons, I might not agree with the next few thousand they eliminate.  

I have come to the conclusion, after my years of observation, that the government cannot, at any level, be trusted with unchecked power and particularly this one, the abuse of which will ensure there are no whistle blowers around to testify against it.

I look at it this way. You have 2 choices here. Let the government do what it is supposed to do, which is protect us from foreign invaders, (citizen or not). Or else look the other way and live with the consequences of this guys henchmen turning up somewhere with a truck bomb, (maybe on your street), and killing innocent people. I'll choose option A. It is ridiculous to think we can safely capture these guys and bring them to trial. We were lucky enough to get the opportunity to kill the guy with sophisticated weaponry. Capture would have been out of the question, if not totally impossible, and could have put American lives in danger. Look at Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It's been 10 years and they haven't even set a trial date yet. Not to mention how many millions we've spent on him already.

No, I'm sorry, but "the right way" is usually no way. Not to mention the cost. These people pose a clear and present danger to us far more than our government does. At least at this time. We were damn lucky with Bin Laden. Had we captured him instead of killed him it would have been yet another 10 year circus. Al Awlaki would have been far worse. Every bleeding heart would have poured out of the woodwork. There is no way to "square off" on the battlefield with these guys. It becomes a game of kill them when and where you find them. Bush said after 9/11 there would be nowhere for these guys to hide anywhere in the world. So far he has been right. I'm no fan of government. But with that said I'll pick them, along with their covert ways and methods of protecting us, over some greasy rag head that wants me dead. And I don't much care if he was born here, or in some Middle Eastern stink hole. Their intent is the same, so should be the punishment. I happen to agree with the reason THIS time too. And so far I have no reason not to believe I'll agree NEXT TIME as well. Let's hope they run out of guys before I change my mind.

[billt]

Let me put it another way.
If citizens don't have the right to kill these politicians that richly deserve it, where do they get the right to kill citizens.

When those same citizens kill, or mastermind the killing of innocent Americans. When citizens are shot dead by the police in commission of a crime there is no trial, just a funeral. They were killed because they put an innocent American in danger. If it were your wife they protected by killing them, you would be thanking them, not screaming bloody murder. Cops are forced to play judge, jury, and executioner every day of the week they have to drop the hammer in the line of duty...........on United States CITIZENS.

[Solus]

When those same citizens kill, or mastermind the killing of innocent Americans. When citizens are shot dead by the police in commission of a crime there is no trial, just a funeral. They were killed because they put an innocent American in danger. If it were your wife they protected by killing them, you would be thanking them, not screaming bloody murder. Cops are forced to play judge, jury, and executioner every day of the week they have to drop the hammer in the line of duty...........on United States CITIZENS.

Bill, you can compare them to Cops when cops are empowered to meet in secret, decide who they want to off and for whatever reasons they decided. 

Cops have a very limited list of reasons to shoot a someone and for sure there will be plenty of review afterwards.  Even with all this, we have seen  how many incidents where cops have abused their power and killed innocents, knowing full well they were innocent.

[billt]

how many incidents where cops have abused their power and killed innocents, knowing full well they were innocent.

Then they go to trial for it. Like I said we don't have a lot of choices here. Capture requires troops, or at the least elite ground forces. And it is too risky. We don't necessarily have the right to go on foreign soil to get these guys if we were so inclined. Look at how pissed Pakistan got at us for violating their sovereignty. What the hell are we supposed to do with these guys, invite them to to the White House to chat? You have no options open except to find them, and kill them when you do. Or allow them to go free and continue to kill us. That option stinks.

[tombogan03884]

When those same citizens kill, or mastermind the killing of innocent Americans. When citizens are shot dead by the police in commission of a crime there is no trial, just a funeral. They were killed because they put an innocent American in danger. If it were your wife they protected by killing them, you would be thanking them, not screaming bloody murder. Cops are forced to play judge, jury, and executioner every day of the week they have to drop the hammer in the line of duty...........on United States CITIZENS.

So you're saying that murders don't need to be tried to be executed ? But cops that murder some one should be tried before they're executed ?
You can't defend this dumbazz position.

[Sponsor]

[billt]

So you're saying that murders don't need to be tried to be executed ? But cops that murder some one should be tried before they're executed ?

They are enemy combatants. They should be killed. They were killed. What is the problem? Oh, yeah.......He was a "Citizen". 

[Solus]

Then they go to trial for it. Like I said we don't have a lot of choices here. Capture requires troops, or at the least elite ground forces. And it is too risky. We don't necessarily have the right to go on foreign soil to get these guys if we were so inclined. Look at how pissed Pakistan got at us for violating their sovereignty. What the hell are we supposed to do with these guys, invite them to to the White House to chat? You have no options open except to find them, and kill them when you do. Or allow them to go free and continue to kill us. That option stinks.

I see what you are saying.  

Because there is no other option to stop the guy because he is out of reach of all official US authority, if anything was going to be done it had to be outside official legal channels.

Then the procedure needs to be put in place, and I don't mean some Executive Order, but a legal process with a warrant type routine that would include a very  high court.

Sure, it might take a bit of time, but if you KNOW the guy is that bad, do the work, have it reviewed and get your KOS order.

Search warrants of any kind take more time, but we would be fools if we said the guys in the coffee room down at the precinct could just decide if they were in the mood for a search on some scum bag that morning.

Doing it cause the guys in the back room thought he needed to go just doesn't cut it....not for the government.

[billt]

I see what you are saying.  

Because there is no other option to stop the guy because he is out of reach of all official US authority, if anything was going to be done it had to be outside official legal channels. Then the procedure needs to be put in place, and I don't mean some Executive Order, but a legal process with a warrant type routine that would include a very  high court. Sure, it might take a bit of time, but if you KNOW the guy is that bad, do the work, have it reviewed and get your KOS order.

Search warrants of any kind take more time, but we would be fools if we said the guys in the coffee room down at the precinct could just decide if they were in the mood for a search on some scum bag that morning. Doing it cause the guys in the back room thought he needed to go just doesn't cut it....not for the government.

What kind of "procedure" are you going to put in place? This guy was a proven no good who had his hands in the killing of Americans. There was nothing else we could do. Look at how the Pakistanis jacked us off with Bin Laden for years tipping him off. You'll never get these guys any other way than we did with Al Awlaki. We are lucky we got him. The fact this guy was a "citizen" means nothing. It's a formality, nothing more. You don't hear anyone really bitching about it. These guys are like trying to catch a greased pig. You have to shoot them. If he had made contact with our government and wanted to turn himself in, he would have saved his own life. He didn't, now he's dead. I'm just not seeing a problem with any of this.

I don't put cops who make a mistake in the line of duty in the same category as some greasy rag head who has denounced his country, and wants to kill everyone in it, given the opportunity.

[jnevis]

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC" doesn't say anything about a trial.  That said there are limits to that.  Of course the OWS subversives it wouldn't apply as they are a threat but so far are not killing people.  Al Awlaki actively pursued the VIOLENT overthrow of the US government.

Although not 100% personally verified accurate:

In January 2010, White House lawyers considered the legality of attempting to kill al-Awlaki, given his U.S. citizenship. Opportunities to do so "may have been missed" because of legal questions surrounding such an attack. But on February 4, 2010, New York Daily News reported that al-Awlaki was "now on a targeting list signed off on by the Obama administration".

On April 6, The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing.  Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.  U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.  The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list.  In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.  People on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

BTW I love how we bounce from Pres canidates to anti-terrorism to nearly nekkid women and back, in a LOT of the posts around here

[tombogan03884]

I'm ashamed of you two.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec1

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.