Executive Branch's Kill List Can Include American Citizens

Jack House said:

I don't support the so called war on terror either. Like the "war on drugs" it has brought more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, there are many others who do.

I support both. I'm not involved in terrorism or in drugs, so I don't have to worry about the things that unlawful miscreants do.

MilProGuy said:

Thankfully, there are many others who do.

I support both. I'm not involved in terrorism or in drugs, so I don't have to worry about the things that unlawful miscreants do.

Click to expand...

Your a vet, no? You're already on the governments list of potential terrorists.


Posted using my HTC Evo

A reasonable attempt to capture terrorists should be made, but that shouldn't freeze all other actions against them. The person who was killed in the OP was in a lawless region of a foreign country where one can't just send in police to arrest the person. The current system is broken, but there is no easy answer to fix it.

MilProGuy said:

Thankfully, there are many others who do.

I support both. I'm not involved in terrorism or in drugs, so I don't have to worry about the things that unlawful miscreants do.

Click to expand...

Sadly many others support it. They apparently don't learn from history or just want to try and control the masses. Tell me, how well did the prohibition on alcohol (which is a drug) work? Now tell me, why do people expect a different result with a prohibition on other drugs that are just as easy to illegally manufacture as alcohol? And I won't get into all the issues that have arisen from the government's "war on drugs" and the militarization of the police force and the various questionable search warrents, incorrect house raids, etc that have happened due to this "war" (hint: you can't go to war against an item or idea, you go to war against people).

Also have you not been paying attention to the various issues of our "terrorism" watch list? A Congressman ended up on the list (I believe it was a senator, but not positive), and plenty of other people have had issues with incorrectly ending up on it (people usually find out when they attempt to fly and suddenly can't). You don't have to be involved in terrorism or drugs for our government's handling of these things to negatively impact you.


And for anyone potentially confused by my postings this is my rough stance on the OP. A government needs to be able to have the power to properly handle those that are attacking the citizenry, regardless of where those people are. Attempts should be made to capture the individuals if reasonably possible. If one is not able to be reasonably captured (such as the OP where he was hiding in a foreign country where LE simply can't go in and attempt to get him), then the killing of the enemy combatant is a reasonable use of force to help stop the enemy attacks. The citizenship of the enemy should not matter for how they are handled; though it might be a factor in attempting to capture the individual as a foreign national is likely to be in a foreign country and thus capture might be unreasonable for a variety of reasons. That said, our current system is broken and allows too much potential for abuse. Also I don't have a problem with absentee trials should the person refuse to come to court in order to show everything that the individual has done to justify the actions that are to follow (so the trial would need to be before the killing), and the trials would have to be public as private trials are too suseptable to corruption.

I'm sure I could go into even more detail, but I'm trying to keep it relatively simple and to the point.

Jack House said:

Your a vet, no? You're already on the governments list of potential terrorists.

Click to expand...

Perhaps...but I seriously doubt that the federal government is going to be sending an armed drone my way anytime soon.

My lifestyle versus the lifestyle of a known radical Islamic terrorist are two totally different ways of life. I've never been harassed by any department of law enforcement, and I never will because I am a patriotic veteran and a law-abiding citizen...unlike the puke who was taken out by the drone.

He chose his path of destruction.

MilProGuy said:

Perhaps...but I seriously doubt that the federal government is going to be sending an armed drone my way anytime soon.

My lifestyle versus the lifestyle of a known radical Islamic terrorist are two totally different ways of life. I've never been harassed by any department of law enforcement, and I never will because I am a patriotic veteran and a law-abiding citizen...unlike the puke who was taken out by the drone.

He chose his path of destruction.

Click to expand...

Then you're either naive or willfully ignorant of the abuses of LE. Here's an article of a senator being harrassed by law enforcement and I'm not about to try and post stories of us "common" folks being harrassed because they are so abundant that you would have to be an osterich to not know about them given how many are regularly posted on this very site.

Just because you're a vet and a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean that you're immune from government harrassment.

That's strike two. Calling yourself a patriot is just like calling yourself a terrorist in the eyes of Homeland. Well, you also support gun rights, so technically it's strike three.

Are you a Christian? Homeland says you're a terrorist.
Ever had small unit tactics training while not in the military? Homeland says you're a terrorist.
Ever fly the Dresden Flag? Homeland says your a terrorist.
Ever quoted the line "the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants" or however it goes? Homeland says your a terrorist.
Don't support Obama? Homeland says your a terrorist.

How many "potential terrorist" categories do you fall under? There's still more than what I've listed here, a lot more and a lot of them probably apply to you. Might wannabe something to look at before arrogantly stating you're not one. You may not be a 'radical Islamic extremist" but in the eyes of Homeland, you're no different.

Think I'm making it up? It's posted all over this forum, go have a look. Personally I find it amusing that DHS has the slogan "preserving our freedom" while simultaneously doing everything within their power, lawfully or otherwise, to abridge that very freedom.

Guess you never learned the lesson of "I didn't care because I wasn't one." Even now when you are one.

My lifestyle versus the lifestyle of a known radical Islamic terrorist are two totally different ways of life. I've never been harassed by any department of law enforcement, and I never will because I am a patriotic veteran and a law-abiding citizen...unlike the puke who was taken out by the drone.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

Who says Al-Queda declared war on the US? Meaning, who accepts Al-Queda's say-so? They seem to be a stateless bunch of cut-throats, not a nation. If they declared "war", its self-aggrandizing. They're puffing themselves up, making themselves into far more than they really are.

Yes, they've pulled off some spectacular successes. Mainly because of the technology used to jack up the body count. But, that doesn't make it "war." Lets not credit these people more than they deserve. Our own government does enough of that already in order to justify occupations in two countries, 100's of thousands of deaths, and ratcheting the national debt to Saturn.

Terrorism is a criminal act; not an act of war.

What is a government to do? Well, lets explore that for a moment. Require the host country to arrest and turn him over? Try him in abstentia?--at least present the evidence for judicial review if he simply must be killed because the price of not killing him is far worse than giving government the power to kill citizens without trial.

You see, I think this is the point that people are not weighing out: the damage the individual subject terrorist can do weighed against the damage the government can do by abusing that power. Never forgetting that one element of the government's damage is using the consent as the first inch from which to expand abuses and justifications.

What and how the government should handle such a situation is only a part of the picture. The answers are limited by imagination. Just because someone asks tells us right away the asker may be so short on imagination he can't think up any answers. All of us should suffer under a government that kills citizens without trial because an asker is too dumb to think up alternatives? We don't need imagination to know what governments do with the power to kill without trial. The history on that question is long and bloody.

Trust me on this. Please. If you can't think up a good alternative, just listen. Or, look around to see what other people, smarter, might be saying. Like historians. Or, government professors. The question is far too important to hold a half-thought-out opinion. Much less promote it, possibly giving support to an abusive government. We cannot afford to relearn the lessons of history the hard way. Especially on this question.

Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to write it out my would-be response; besides, Citizen already did it better than I could so to the above I say: Plus fricken a zillion.....:exclaim:

Our government and it's executives, black robes, and congress critters have far out stepped their authority for so long that it seems people are starting to believe that's the way it should be!? :banghead:

I wish the congress had the will/balls to actually impeach presidents and SCotUS justices when they need to be.

I just thought to add....

Have any of you that are in favor of this assassination taken the time to read the WHOLE Declaration of Independence? As a side note, I'd like to point out that the founders made no distinction between men based on citizenship when they wrote this:

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Click to expand...

More importantly, if you do in fact take the time to read the whole thing you will see these reasons, amongst many others for the declaration:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

Click to expand...

Those sound pretty familiar. Read all of it, and it's like our leaders for the last 150 years thought they were instructions on how to run this joint.

Aknazer said:

Just because you're a vet and a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean that you're immune from government harrassment.

Click to expand...

It's a formula that has worked for me so far. Don't "fix it" if it ain't broke.

MilProGuy said:

It's a formula that has worked for me so far. Don't "fix it" if it ain't broke.

Click to expand...

Being a law abiding vet/citizen doesn't work anymore, it's not that there is an issue with it. The government is what is broken. I'm sure that's a statement you can agree with, even if you think you're immune from harassment. But guess what, that statement on some terrorist watch list if I wasn't on one already. I don't think you're getting it, maybe you don't want to. It's a scary thing to believe that the government is so corrupt, but it's true. Again, I implore you to look at the facts, to see what we're saying and look it up for yourself. I could post cites, but I don't it'll do much good here.

Posted using my HTC Evo

Jack House said:

Being a law abiding vet/citizen doesn't work anymore, it's not that there is an issue with it. The government is what is broken. I'm sure that's a statement you can agree with, even if you think you're immune from harassment.

I don't think you're getting it, maybe you don't want to. It's a scary thing to believe that the government is so corrupt, but it's true. Again, I implore you to look at the facts, to see what we're saying and look it up for yourself. I could post cites, but I don't it'll do much good here.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments and insights into this matter; and, from the earnest tone of your writing, I am concerned enough to look further into the things you have brought to my attention.

You mentioned: "I don't think you're getting it, maybe you don't want to." I can assure you that the last portion of your statement is certainly not the case. I am here to learn all I can about the issues concerning buying, owning, and carrying handguns.

Thanks again for your counsel in this matter.

So, what happened to relying on past precedence? A little run-down here

1. Try for treason
2. If convicted, strip citizenship
3. Expell from USA
4. Open season

I didn't read the rest of thread after Citizens post. No assasination of an American citizen without due process.

But, of course, OKboomer hits it out of the park. Thanks lady!

MilProGuy said:

This guy was not a true American. He was a radical Islamic terrorist and he chose his own poison, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

He is as much of an american citizen as the rest of us. If he can be assassinated without due process so can you and so can I.

Daylen said:

He is as much of an american citizen as the rest of us. If he can be assassinated without due process so can you and so can I.

Click to expand...

Then what about the americans that served in the german army during WWII? I take it you think they were assassinated and that we should have tried to of captured them instead of killing them.

Aknazer said:

Then what about the americans that served in the german army during WWII? I take it you think they were assassinated and that we should have tried to of captured them instead of killing them.

Click to expand...

Were they assassinated or were they killed in combat? There IS a difference.


Posted using my HTC Evo

the executive branch should pause long enough to consider that they may not be the only one's making lists ... and Santa checks his twice!

Jack House said:

Were they assassinated or were they killed in combat? There IS a difference.


Posted using my HTC Evo

Click to expand...

I consider those who are actively working to attack us as combatants just as much as those who carry out the attacks regardless of how frequently the group is able to succeed in carrying out its attacks.

And I would say that is the real issue and that I don't see people discussing it here. What is a combatant? By the Geneva Conventions these terrorists would be classified as unlawful combatants, but are still combatants.

Daylen said:

He is as much of an american citizen as the rest of us. If he can be assassinated without due process so can you and so can I.

Click to expand...

Well, let me put it this way...It he walks like an American and talks like an American, he probably is an American...

on the other hand...If he walks like a despicable, radical Islamic terrorist, and talks like a despicable, radical Islamic terrorist...he probably IS a despicable, radical Islamic terrorist.

In my neck of the woods, you can't be both and still be an American.