Herman Cain

[tombogan03884]

Since you're such a champion of citizens rights, how about telling us just how you would go about bringing these guys to justice? Remember, if you are going to play this by the book, you have to play it all the way. You can't violate a nations sovereignty to uphold citizens rights.

Now, let's look at the game from a factual standpoint, now that we've managed to totally cleanse it by upholding everyone's rights, laws, and sovereignty, and keeping everyone happy, including the guy who's trying to kill all of us.

1.) You can't kill him because you haven't tried him. He is a United States citizen who has denounced his country, but we all know that doesn't matter. He still has "rights".

2.) You can't capture him because you would by violating the sovereignty of the nation he was hiding out in by crossing their border without permission, and putting troops in their country to commit, what amounts to an act of kidnapping. Also, if the country he is hiding out in does not have an extradition treaty with the United States, you could not bring him back here for trial even if you were to capture him. You would be violating yet another law.

3.) The country he's hiding out in will not give you permission to enter their country to capture him, because they hate us as much or more than the guy we're trying to capture does.

4.) Going to the UN is as worthless as jacking off in a cup.

5.) There is no chance of getting him to "peacefully surrender".

So based on those facts and options, none of which will work without violating something, which option would you use to get him that I'm forgetting?

Actually you can, citizens have rights, not countries.
I don't see any thing here about the rights of foreign counties, (Except in finance )
Check for yourself

http://www.usconstitution.net/

As to the rest of your post it's pure BS, We got both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden in foreign countries

[billt]

We got both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden in foreign countries.

They weren't citizens.

[billt]

citizens have rights, not countries.
I don't see any thing here about the rights of foreign counties, (Except in finance )

So you have no problem with violating international law involving other nations sovereignty, just citizens rights. If you're going to pick and choose which laws and rights you are going to abide by, and which you're going to outright violate, what's the point? Just do as we did, which amounts to what ever the hell we want. Fly in and kill the bastard.

[Solus]

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.

You either want to let the government pick and choose who they execute without control, as they did here, or you want to stop that practice, even though this time you agree with it.  The next time you might not agree at all, but you have allowed the precedent to go unchallenged.

I'll quote one of Tom's posts...doesn't quite apply here but it is apt.     "You should have stopped me when I took the roll."

[billt]

My point in all of this is that sooner or later common sense has to kick in. When it does there is no other way to do this except the way we did it. Screw his "rights". Capture is all but impossible. There isn't anything else. You either have to kill the guy when and where you find him, or let him go. The later would be stupid. I am not buying into all of this "slippery slope" nonsense, in that if we allow the government to do this, the next thing is they'll be assassinating citizens for not paying back taxes, or some such silly, concocted foolishness. When anything even remotely happens like that there are consequences. One only has to look at Waco and Ruby Ridge to see what happens when the government oversteps it's bounds on it's own citizens. And before you again go off on some kind of legal tangent, remember that David Koresh and Randy Weaver did not denounce their country, or plot to kill anyone.

I'm not a civil rights, or constitutional lawyer and neither are you. With that said when an individual denounces his country, then plots to kill it's citizens, and attempts to carry out such attacks more than once, and successfully, (Fort Hood), then all bets are off. If that "fractures" a few of his rights he has, or once had, from a country he has since denounced, too bad. We as a nation have never faced a situation with enemies such as this. Because of it there very well may have to be some new laws enacted or rewritten. Until they are I see no reason to make something dangerous and complicated even more so by ignoring it, and letting someone of this caliber go free. There was no other way within reason to do it, period.

[Sponsor]

[jnevis]

Find the part that says no trial required to impose a sentence.
Your basic premise that it is OK for the Govt to kill a citizen with out trial is stupid, and indefensible, I don't care what document you quote.
If you actually read them you will notice they all require a trial before execution no matter what kind of scumbag your dealing with.
I expected better from you.

The title that they are using for the basis of the trial on W's Military Commisions Act of 2006.  It's tenuous because some of the wording isn't consistant.

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants— Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
(d) Punishments— A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.

 :"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
...
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."


There is a great deal of debate about the unlawful enemy combatant definition since in one paragraph it says it applies to "aliens" and in others it does not.  I'm not saying that there isn't sticking points and that the interprutation is vague, but there is laws and procedures in place that the average American has no business knowing.  Sorry you can't have it both ways.  Total transperancy isn't possible and you REALLY don't want to know everything either.  At the same time an open trial as you are contending puts more Americans at risk.  You are opening sources and techniques up for scrutiny by people we don't want to have that information.

[Solus]

My point in all of this is that sooner or later common sense has to kick in. When it does there is no other way to do this except the way we did it. Screw his "rights". Capture is all but impossible. There isn't anything else. You either have to kill the guy when and where you find him, or let him go. The later would be stupid. I am not buying into all of this "slippery slope" nonsense, in that if we allow the government to do this, the next thing is they'll be assassinating citizens for not paying back taxes, or some such silly, concocted foolishness. When anything even remotely happens like that there are consequences. One only has to look at Waco and Ruby Ridge to see what happens when the government oversteps it's bounds on it's own citizens. And before you again go off on some kind of legal tangent, remember that David Koresh and Randy Weaver did not denounce their country, or plot to kill anyone.

I'm not a civil rights, or constitutional lawyer and neither are you. With that said when an individual denounces his country, then plots to kill it's citizens, and attempts to carry out such attacks more than once, and successfully, (Fort Hood), then all bets are off. If that "fractures" a few of his rights he has, or once had, from a country he has since denounced, too bad. We as a nation have never faced a situation with enemies such as this. Because of it there very well may have to be some new laws enacted or rewritten. Until they are I see no reason to make something dangerous and complicated even more so by ignoring it, and letting someone of this caliber go free. There was no other way within reason to do it, period.

I agree....laws will h ave to be enacted or rewritten.  Until then is it wrong to condone the illegal killing.  

And what were the consequences besides a bunch of innocent folks killed and some cash awarded to some survivors?

And just who are the onse who decided all bets are off?  Admin thugs in the back room like happened here?   I say no, you seem to be saying yes.

[billt]

I agree....laws will h ave to be enacted or rewritten.  Until then is it wrong to condone the illegal killing.

It is far worse to allow this guy to continue plotting to kill Americans totally unchecked. Risk the death of more citizens to protect the "rights" of someone who wants to see those same citizens killed, until we can change the law? That is ridiculous. I take it the other way around. So will most Americans. Which is why you don't hear too many complaining about it.

[Solus]

It is far worse to allow this guy to continue plotting to kill Americans totally unchecked. Risk the death of more citizens to protect the "rights" of someone who wants to see those same citizens killed, until we can change the law? That is ridiculous. I take it the other way around. So will most Americans. Which is why you don't hear too many complaining about it.

You were to fast for me...I added two lines to the post after you responded.  Here they are.

And what were the consequences besides a bunch of innocent folks killed and some cash awarded to some survivors?

And just who are the onse who decided all bets are off?  Admin thugs in the back room like happened here?   I say no, you seem to be saying yes.

[Solus]

It is far worse to allow this guy to continue plotting to kill Americans totally unchecked. Risk the death of more citizens to protect the "rights" of someone who wants to see those same citizens killed, until we can change the law? That is ridiculous. I take it the other way around. So will most Americans. Which is why you don't hear too many complaining about it.

Popular opinion doesn't make something right.  I prefer our Republic to that Democracy.

And by that logic, since few Germans complained about Auschwitz, it was the right choice.