If a President Has a Power to Assassinate You...

If you see a armed UCAV flying over your place in Wisconsin I'd call the FBI, the FAA and the DoD. Several local 'news' agencies and the big media outlets also. Oh, that video camera we all tote religiously, snap some photos and grab some video. Post-em to the Interwebs, twitter, facebutt, youtube.....you get the idea.

OC for ME said:

If you see a armed UCAV flying over your place in Wisconsin I'd call the FBI, the FAA and the DoD. Several local 'news' agencies and the big media outlets also. Oh, that video camera we all tote religiously, snap some photos and grab some video. Post-em to the Interwebs, twitter, facebutt, youtube.....you get the idea.

Click to expand...

It's not UCAV, it's UAV. Rather, they won't be using UCAV's...

Police aren't going to be flying armed Reapers. They are using much smaller uav's with cameras.

Lolol!

Stanley said:

The Constitution applies to everyone within the borders of the United States... Even illegal aliens are protected by the Constitution.

That implies that the Constitution is attached to location and not citizenship.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ, The constitution is a law that applies to the Federal government, it restricts the federal governments powers, grants others in enumeration, no where does it limit the restrictions of the federal government to infringe upon human rights only within our borders.

Remember it was 13 individual little countries forming a union.

Can you cite were these rights in the constitution only applies to U.S. Borders?

sudden valley gunner said:

I beg to differ, The constitution is a law that applies to the Federal government, it restricts the federal governments powers, grants others in enumeration, no where does it limit the restrictions of the federal government to infringe upon human rights only within our borders.

Remember it was 13 individual little countries forming a union.

Can you cite were these rights in the constitution only applies to U.S. Borders?

Click to expand...

No need to... US law does not apply outside of US territory. We do not have universal jurisdiction. In cases of child sex tourism or where we try someone for the murder of an American citizen, we do so because the government where the "crime" occured allows us to do so in their stead, not in addition to their prosecution.
Which would be why killing someone in say, Mexico, won't get you tried for murder here in America.

Can you cite something that states that US law DOES apply outside of America???

EDIT: Apparently there is a 1994 law that allows prosecutors to try American citizens for the murder of American citizens outside of America but that is only murder and only American on American.

In fact, besides, child sex tourism AND American on American murder, the only cases I can think of are foreign agents conducting espionage but still captured within American territory...

United States. US v. Zehe, 601 F. Supp. 196 (D. Mass. 1985).

None of this gives ALL laws universal jurisdiction.

sudden valley gunner said:

I beg to differ, The constitution is a law that applies to the Federal government, it restricts the federal governments powers, grants others in enumeration, no where does it limit the restrictions of the federal government to infringe upon human rights only within our borders.

Remember it was 13 individual little countries forming a union.

Can you cite were these rights in the constitution only applies to U.S. Borders?

Click to expand...

Oh jeeze Rob, don't tell these folks the truth... And don't go pushin' our public schoolin' too far. We just don't know what's what unless they tell us. :banghead:

Stanley said:

The Constitution applies to everyone within the borders of the United States... Even illegal aliens are protected by the Constitution.

That implies that the Constitution is attached to location and not citizenship.

If citizens aren't bound to laws of the United States outside of our territory then why would the government be???

Just declaring "No, that's the way it is!!" ain't gonna cut it.

Also, if the "citizenship" is the overriding concern then all Al-Qaeda has to do is make sure an American citizen is with every single "unit" they have and then PRESTO we can't bomb them because that would be violating the American's civil rights??? That ain't gonna fly neither...


If you are surrounded by the enemy and you are NOT a hostage/POW then you've rescinded your rights. Hell, the cops can shoot you whilst trying to get the bad guy and suffer no repercussions. Why then can't the army bomb an American citizen in an attempt to kill the other non-citizen bad guys that were with him???

That was true in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and now Yemen...

Click to expand...

Stanley, please feel free is surrendering all of your Rights to the nearest government representative. You clearly don't need them. Just obey unquestioningly and everything will be just fine. Nothing personal but clearly you trust these people. And that is where you and I part ways.

Freedom First said:

Stanley, please feel free is surrendering all of your Rights to the nearest government representative. You clearly don't need them. Just obey unquestioningly and everything will be just fine. Nothing personal but clearly you trust these people. And that is where you and I part ways.

Click to expand...

I trust them? Lol

I haven't said how it should be, only how it is...

On a side note, given the chance, I would have pulled the trigger on that traitor myself. Shrug...

Stanley said:

I trust them? Lol

I haven't said how it should be, only how it is...

On a side note, given the chance, I would have pulled the trigger on that traitor myself. Shrug...

Click to expand...

Don't trust them yet you seem to relish their abuses... All I would ask is that you think about the side effects to the rest of us from your choices. Especially in the long term.

Freedom First said:

Don't trust them yet you seem to relish their abuses... All I would ask is that you think about the side effects to the rest of us from your choices. Especially in the long term.

Click to expand...

I get what you are saying. However, perhaps you should consider your audience.

My mistrust doesn't come from theoretical ideas of what could happen or even little things here. As I recall, my people just barely received their civil rights. I'm the last person willing to give them up.

However, that doesn't change the current state of the laws or my feelings.

I see no difference between a trial in absentia (which is NOT someone receiving a fair trial where they can defend themselves as they cannot since they are not there, nor can they face their accusers) and showing evidence and proceeding with the execution without a trial.

Why is one ok and the other isn't?

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Automatically trials in absentia should be unconstitutional... But they aren't and some here are advocating for that instead of just killing him.

What's the difference?

Stanley said:

I get what you are saying. However, perhaps you should consider your audience.

My mistrust doesn't come from theoretical ideas of what could happen or even little things here. As I recall, my people just barely received their civil rights. I'm the last person willing to give them up.

However, that doesn't change the current state of the laws or my feelings.

I see no difference between a trial in absentia (which is NOT someone receiving a fair trial where they can defend themselves as they cannot since they are not there, nor can they face their accusers) and showing evidence and proceeding with the execution without a trial.

Why is one ok and the other isn't?

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Automatically trials in absentia should be unconstitutional... But they aren't and some here are advocating for that instead of just killing him.

What's the difference?

Click to expand...

So let's say you are hiding in Yemen and the US Govt decides to try you as a terrorist. They won't do that in a vacuum. They would go through the motions of extradition and then try you in absentia. You choose to resist being brought back to America for a trial. Did you then receive a chance to defend yourself in court and choose to discard it? Yep. Holding a trial without your presence is then correct and appropriate in that case.

Freedom First said:

Don't trust them yet you seem to relish their abuses... All I would ask is that you think about the side effects to the rest of us from your choices. Especially in the long term.

Click to expand...

Agree. We have a good amount of history on this subject. During the Roman Republic (not the Roman Empire--the Republic that preceded the empire) there occasionally arose a dictator who seized power. At least one of them, Sulla, practiced proscription. If you were proscribed, your name was put on a publicly viewable list. Your property was forfeit to the state for auction, and anybody could kill you. The whole idea being to make you dead.

In one of the most famous trials in history, Cicero won his spurs as a lawyer by successfully defending a man accused of murdering his father. Cicero was able to show that it was likely two of the dictator Sulla's henchman who committed the murder under the direction of uber-henchman Chrysogonus. The dead man was proscribed so his property could be obtained by Chrysogonus, but apparently the dead man's name was only added to the list after the murder. The point being that other motives come into play when proscribing someone.

Essentially, the prez is claiming the power to proscribe someone.

Separately, Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited by the Constitution. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative declaration that a person is an outlaw and anyone is free to kill him. No due process. There is no difference in result between a proscription and a Bill of Attainder.

Cicero had his dealings with Sulla and Chrysogonus over 2000 years ago. Over 2000 years ago. We as a society cannot afford to learn these lessons again the hard way.

And, while the press harps on the dead Alawki, lots of people seem to have missed that his 16 year old son, also a US citizen was also killed in a drone missile strike.



Historical note. Cicero went on to be a consul (co-president) of the Roman Republic. He worked hard to keep the Republic together when Julius Caesar came along. In fact, the First Triumverate which circumvented the Roman constitution was originally planned to include four men, not three. But, when Julius Caesar approached Cicero about being the fourth man, Cicero turned him down. Anybody know how Cicero, one of Rome's greatest statesman, died? Just like this. After the assissination of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian Caesar went after the conspirators. A civil war ensued. Antony and Octavian won. Then Antony and Octavian started a proscription. Cicero's name was on the list. Brutus never included Cicero in the conspiracy; the listing was personal grudge, if I recall. Not long after being proscribed, somebody caught up with Cicero and killed him.

Freedom First said:

So let's say you are hiding in Yemen and the US Govt decides to try you as a terrorist. They won't do that in a vacuum. They would go through the motions of extradition and then try you in absentia. You choose to resist being brought back to America for a trial. Did you then receive a chance to defend yourself in court and choose to discard it? Yep. Holding a trial without your presence is then correct and appropriate in that case.

Click to expand...

Why would it then be correct. If you can waive your rights related to trials by action then clearly you can waive your right to trial by the same action.

One implies the other. I'm not saying either are right. I'm saying you can't agree to one without the other.

If one right can be waived by an action then all rights can.

Precluding one the would preclude the other.

It seems to me that the main concern is that the govt didn't "go through the motions."

Of course "going through the motions" implies doing something where the outcome is already decided out of mere form and procedure.

Same result...

Also in August 2005, the US Department of Homeland Security / Customs and Border Protection (DHS/CBP) ordered two Predator B systems for monitoring of the USA's south-west border. The first was delivered in late 2005, the second in September 2006. Two further systems were ordered in October 2006, for monitoring operations on the border with Canada.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/Projects/predator-uav/

Click to expand...

Already in use on the northern border and the southwest border.

Stanley said:

Why would it then be correct. If you can waive your rights related to trials by action then clearly you can waive your right to trial by the same action.

One implies the other. I'm not saying either are right. I'm saying you can't agree to one without the other.

If one right can be waived by an action then all rights can.

Precluding one the would preclude the other.

It seems to me that the main concern is that the govt didn't "go through the motions."

Of course "going through the motions" implies doing something where the outcome is already decided out of mere form and procedure.

Same result...

Click to expand...

Stanley,

I'm not sure I understood your post but I'll take a swing at it.

Regarding waiving Rights, my signature addresses that: "Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose."

Can I suggest that you read Citizen's post above? It talks about this abuse from a historical point of view. You know, Solomon said, "There's nothing new under the sun." And he was right. Tyrants do the same things over and over and over and most people seem to be unwilling to see their actions for what they clearly are. They choose to apply a well meaning character to those who would rule over or even kill them.

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” ― Daniel Webster

Freedom First said:

Stanley,

I'm not sure I understood your post but I'll take a swing at it.

Regarding waiving Rights, my signature addresses that: "Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose."

Can I suggest that you read Citizen's post above? It talks about this abuse from a historical point of view. You know, Solomon said, "There's nothing new under the sun." And he was right. Tyrants do the same things over and over and over and most people seem to be unwilling to see their actions for what they clearly are. They choose to apply a well meaning character to those who would rule over or even kill them.

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” ― Daniel Webster

Click to expand...

Sorry if I rambled. His posting was an interesting read that I was semi-aware of historically.

I mean to pose two questions...

1) We have the right to a trial by jury, to confront our accuser and to defend ourselves. A trial in absentia removes the two former rights. We perform trials in absentia when people cannot be brought in (say because they are hiding in Yemen). If we can remove TWO rights because he was unreachable in Yemen then why can't we remove the third, trial by jury, for the same reason?

How is it ok to deny the right to defend himself and face his accuser because of his CHOICE but not ok to deny his trial by jury because of the same choice???


2) Hypothetically, if a person is committing a crime that will imminently cause the loss of life (pointing a gun at a police officer or someone else, murder, attempted murder, bombing something, treason, etc) the government and citizens can legally kill that person while attempting to stop the crime through other means. It occurs daily. If that's the case, then why can't this person be killed? The government tried to get him through various means and could not do so. He knows he is wanted for crimes and yet continues participating in activities aimed at causing the loss of life. He continues fighting as an enemy combatant in an enemy army/organization/whatever.

Let me be specific here. Training and participating in the operations of an enemy organization/army IS causing and attempting to cause death. Also note, this guy was NOT on a hit list. He was on a capture or kill list.

Why, then, can't he be killed when any other criminal causing or attempting to cause death can be killed in the act?

**********************************



What I am driving at is that by supporting a Trial in Absentia you are essentially supporting the stripping of rights due to this man's actions because this guy made certain choices (such as making himself unavailable to try in court).

If that is ok, then I am also correct in saying that by making certain choices he can be deprived of all rights since he gave them up by his choice. If you can remove some rights you can remove all of them after all.

Therefore, if I am wrong about being able to strip all rights it follows that you are also wrong about stripping some rights and then what exactly are you arguing for?

Stanley,

I think you missed something: This thread wasn't about the guy in Yemen. It's about the concept of a sitting POTUS "deciding" that I/you/we are "terrorists" and ordering our assassination without a trial. Pretty clear violation of the Fourth through the Seventh Amendments and also not a specific enumerated power granted to the office of the president (or Congress for that matter...).

Stanley said:

1) We have the right to a trial by jury, to confront our accuser and to defend ourselves. A trial in absentia removes the two former rights. We perform trials in absentia when people cannot be brought in (say because they are hiding in Yemen). If we can remove TWO rights because he was unreachable in Yemen then why can't we remove the third, trial by jury, for the same reason?

How is it ok to deny the right to defend himself and face his accuser because of his CHOICE but not ok to deny his trial by jury because of the same choice???

Click to expand...

Pretty simple. We deny him nothing, actually we still give him a trial by his peers, regardless of his status. He is the one who relinquishes his ability to face his accusers and to defend himself in person. He will receive legal representation and they can call witnesses to defend him and his supposed actions.

Stanley said:

2) Hypothetically, if a person is committing a crime that will imminently cause the loss of life (pointing a gun at a police officer or someone else, murder, attempted murder, bombing something, treason, etc) the government and citizens can legally kill that person while attempting to stop the crime through other means. It occurs daily. If that's the case, then why can't this person be killed? The government tried to get him through various means and could not do so. He knows he is wanted for crimes and yet continues participating in activities aimed at causing the loss of life. He continues fighting as an enemy combatant in an enemy army/organization/whatever.

Let me be specific here. Training and participating in the operations of an enemy organization/army IS causing and attempting to cause death. Also note, this guy was NOT on a hit list. He was on a capture or kill list.

Why, then, can't he be killed when any other criminal causing or attempting to cause death can be killed in the act?

Click to expand...

RAS. Just the same as a OCer walking the street. What if Johnny Law blows you away because he felt you were a clear and present danger to some old lady you were walking past? He would have to answer some serious questions were he to draw and fire on you unless you were actually committing a crime of violence. There is that whole annoying "burden of proof" aspect of our legal system to take into account.

Also, the president has no assassination power per the enumerated powers granted to his office by the Constitution. He simply cannot just assassinate people, especially UNCHARGED AND UNCONVICTED AMERICAN CITIZENS, regardless of their behavior or belief structure. Due process must apply to ALL or to NONE. And the passage of unconstitutional laws by the Congress cannot give legitimacy to what are unconstitutional actions.

Stanley said:

What I am driving at is that by supporting a Trial in Absentia you are essentially supporting the stripping of rights due to this man's actions because this guy made certain choices (such as making himself unavailable to try in court).

If that is ok, then I am also correct in saying that by making certain choices he can be deprived of all rights since he gave them up by his choice. If you can remove some rights you can remove all of them after all.

Therefore, if I am wrong about being able to strip all rights it follows that you are also wrong about stripping some rights and then what exactly are you arguing for?

Click to expand...

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." These words are the same as when originally written. So, if the POTUS didn't have that power then, he doesn't have it now.

And, if we allow this president access to this clearly unconstitutional power effectively unchallenged, what will he or the next person acting as the POTUS do with it? It then becomes a normal tool of statecraft and will someday soon be used on the people of these States. That could be your kids or grandkids. Or mine. These people are not meant to be trusted with any power beyond the specific enumerated powers clearly and positively outlined in black and white in our Constitution. Nothing more. Ever.

I have been busy so I'm a little late getting back to this; back in the 80s I knew a guy who had done a hitch in the French Foreign Legion. Anyone who served gets a card with a phone number they can call any time any place in the world if they need help and the Legion will come to their aid. He was afraid to carry it because if "the powers that be" ever found out he could loose his US citizenship.

Section 401(c) of the Nationality Act 1940, which reads:
A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
(c) Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States...

So by openly declaring himself a member of al-Qaeda, a military/para-military organization actually engaged in hostilities against the US, did Anwar al-Awlaki voluntarily forfeit his US citizenship and all rights and protections?????

FreedomFirst...


Dude, you side stepped everything I said...

You advocated trial in absentia which clearly removes two rights.

Am I mistaken? Are the right to face your accuser and the right to defend oneself NOT rights? If not then my bad...

Otherwise, answer the question. Why is it ok to remove those two rights but not others???

And this thread is most definitely about the guy in Yemen. Or has Obama had someone else assassinated?

Clearly you know what you are talking about so why are you dancing around the answer like a Sunday school teacher being asked about science?

I'm confused... Did I miss something?

F350 said:

SNIP French Foreign Legion...So by openly declaring himself a member of al-Qaeda, a military/para-military organization actually engaged in hostilities against the US, did Anwar al-Awlaki voluntarily forfeit his US citizenship and all rights and protections?????

Click to expand...

There are differences between natural rights, the rights guaranteed by the constitution, and whatever near daily-infringements the criminal gang otherwise known as congress comes up with.

Though I believe the government has to much power, even if Anwar somehow was still an American citizen legally I find it hard to give a damn in this case