Executive branch can decide who to kill?

[Nick H.]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/25/white-house-seeks-dismiss-suit-filed-radical-cleric/

The courts have decided it is okay for the executive branch of the US government to decide to kill a US citizen and says congress and the courts cannot intervene.

In this case it is a US born cleric who is promoting terrorism and believed to be hiding in Yemen.

What does this precedent do for us if the NRA is someday declared to be a terrorist organization? What if disbelieving in global warming makes me a terrorist?

Do we want the president to have powers of this nature with no checks and balances?

[Nick H.]

I just read the article a second time. The courts have not decided yet, but the Obama administration is asking the courts to give them the power to decide who should be targeted for assassination. Seems like a bad turn of events to me, although I would like to see them drop a laser guided bomb on the cleric in question.

[mutter]

This power and option has been available to the Fedgod forever. They have been excersizing it forever.

Well, at least one more person finally woke up.

Welcome to 2010!

[Heat]

Originally posted by mutter
This power and option has been available to the Fedgod forever. They have been excersizing it forever.

Well, at least one more person finally woke up.

Welcome to 2010!

I dont believe they have the authority, which puts them outside the law, which in turns makes them criminal--hopefully at some point the people of this great nation will rise as one and say enough!
Until then the smoke and mirrors and the criminal behavior will go ahead at our blessing
Time to put down the remote, put on your boots, sling a rifle and get in shape for the big party

[L Haney]

Originally posted by Nick H.
The courts have not decided yet, but the Obama administration is asking the courts to give them the power to decide who should be targeted for assassination.

So they are asking one of our courts to tell them if it's OK to kill someone in another country that has it's own laws and I'm presuming is a sovereign state?
Uh hmm. Don't that right there seem phuckin' odd enough? Seems like they ought to be asking the OTHER country if it's OK. Long as we're on a fools errand, might as well make it comical.

[GSP228]

Why ask the court, as long as it's "in the interest of national security"?

[mutter]

Originally posted by L Haney


So they are asking one of our courts to tell them if it's OK to kill someone in another country that has it's own laws and I'm presuming is a sovereign state?
Uh hmm. Don't that right there seem phuckin' odd enough? Seems like they ought to be asking the OTHER country if it's OK. Long as we're on a fools errand, might as well make it comical.

We've never asked before and I find it bizarre that we are asking now.

Whether or not we have the right is not the point. The fact that our gov has been doing it for at least 30 years is what troubles me. This is why I left the Army.

All the claims of propriety are bullshit! We were told and trained in how to skirt the GC. Booby traps and assassination are illegal, But we were still trained and required to employ both.

For those in the know, can you say "goat lab'.

[L Haney]

Booby traps are rebranded "early warning devices", and assassination has been around since before written language. Life ain't fair and governments don't stick to their own rules. If you read anything you didn't know in this post, you have my condolences.

[wyatt earp]

Ever hear of habeas corpus?

An individual has the right to confront his or her accusers. No government has the authority to label any citizen a target for assassination.

Who decides someone is an enemy of the state? Who is a terrorist?

All the colonist who battled the Red Coats were considered terrorist... yes, the forefathers of this great nation.



IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

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 of 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

**** From the long list of evils our forefathers rebelled against *****

*** For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

Sound famliar to anyone?

Are we there yet?

On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United Stateswill determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."

The right of habeas corpus is the constitutionally bestowed right of a person to present evidence before a court that he or she has been wrongly imprisoned. To target a US citizen to be killed is a crime. Him today you tomorrow.

http://www.bendib.com/newones/2006/september/small/9-30-Habeas-Corpus.jpg

[L Haney]

I understand your angst. It is caused by your belief that we are a nation of laws and that those laws are absolute. I have found no laws, rights, or assigns to be "absolute". Rather, all are at the whim of the party with the most power. I believe human history will confirm this.

[shlomo]

It's a small price to pay to protect us from people who want to steal our freedoms.

[DP]

Shlomo,

Are you referring to the politicians who want to take our guns and our property, and our freedoms in the name of our safety?:confused:

DP

[Eric Bryant]

Originally posted by Nick H.
Do we want the president to have powers of this nature with no checks and balances?

Most of our nation's fine citizens are quite OK with this - just so long as the current president was someone for whom they voted. Expect the opinion of most to change approximately every four to eight years.

[shlomo]

Originally posted by DP
Shlomo,

Are you referring to the politicians who want to take our guns and our property, and our freedoms in the name of our safety?:confused:

DP



;) :biggrin:

[Thorack]

Wow,

I think Eric Bryant hit the nail on the head. I'm not seeingv or hearing the liberal outrage. For that matter I havent heard squat about Guantanamo since Pres. Obama was elected. Seems its OK now. Liberal outrage only against a select few I guess.

Thorack

[Nick H.]

Yes, Eric is on the right path. This same pattern of thinking extends to the "undeveloped countries" where most of the citizens seem to prefer a dictatorship. The only catch is that they each want "their" dictator in power.

[DP]

Thorack,

Guantanamo is a great place to put all those "American", right wing terrorists, who are clinging to their God, guns, and outdated thoughts on that living document.....just you wait and see how useful it is!!!!:eek:

DP

PS. Liberal outrage only occurs when it doesn't go their way......like maybe in the upcoming elections!!:rofl: :rofl:

[Munster30]

Originally posted by Eric Bryant


Most of our nation's fine citizens are quite OK with this - just so long as the current president was someone for whom they voted. Expect the opinion of most to change approximately every four to eight years. Where's that "fierce moral outrage," and the "moral urgency" of Hopenchangeness?

[StarPD]

One might say that a person that has openly advocated terrorist acts against the US has surrendered his citizenship. If that's correct, it puts this situation in a different light.

[Munster30]

Originally posted by StarPD
One might say that a person that has openly advocated terrorist acts against the US has surrendered his citizenship. If that's correct, it puts this situation in a different light. I would say that they have certainly committed treason, however, being a US Citizen confers Constitutional protections.
Had a Republican done this then it would be a moral outrage, but, Hussein declares Fatwa on a US Citizen and it's okay.
These days "Terrorist" seems to be a subjective definition, ask Janet Napolitano, or Eric Holder...