US citizen gunned down by American Government in Yemen

Elias Koteas said:
Its not as if these are US citizens who are vacationing out of the country. The man was an expatriate, actively living abroad, engaged in high-level terrorist activities, and commanding a station of leadership within al-Queda.
Click to expand...

which is all perfectly acceptable and looks good on your resume
 
Return of Dune said:
I am sure you would be glad to see Obama leave office for any reason, and I understand that.

On this one point though, do you think this is legal?

I can assure you your answer either way will not affect Obama.

As an american, do you believe that the government should be able to bypass the constitution when convienent?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm glad this guy is gone. No mistake was made here by killing him.
 
Return of Dune said:
In your opinion, is this legal, if you don't mind my asking?
Click to expand...

not quite sure. as far as i know, there is no court precedent on point. what we have is an executive order, iirc, and in order to determine whether the order is valid, someone would have to bring suit challenging the president's authority under the constitution, which isn't that clear on the matter, then i suppose you would have to look at legislative law, which would be the WPA and so far, i don't believe anything a president has done has been declared unconstitutional. for example, vietnam, not a declared war, iraq, not a declared war.

the issue is, imo, wholly unresolved. so is it legal? at this point, doesn't matter until someone seeks redress.
 
Alias said:
Personally, I'm glad this guy is gone. No mistake was made here by killing him.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, we are all glad the big bad terrorist is dead.
What about the 5th ammendment?


The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

All they had to do to make this legal was to try him in absentia and find him guilty of treason.
Why the end run arround the constitution?
 
Return of Dune said:
Yes, yes, we are all glad the big bad terrorist is dead.
What about the 5th ammendment?


The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

All they had to do to make this legal was to try him in absentia and find him guilty of treason.
Why the end run arround the constitution?
Click to expand...

with all the national security issues....never happen
 
Yurt said:
not quite sure. as far as i know, there is no court precedent on point. what we have is an executive order, iirc, and in order to determine whether the order is valid, someone would have to bring suit challenging the president's authority under the constitution, which isn't that clear on the matter, then i suppose you would have to look at legislative law, which would be the WPA and so far, i don't believe anything a president has done has been declared unconstitutional. for example, vietnam, not a declared war, iraq, not a declared war.

the issue is, imo, wholly unresolved. so is it legal? at this point, doesn't matter until someone seeks redress.
Click to expand...

Clearly Obama's legal advisors have determined that this is legaly justified.
Not what I am asking.
Do you think this is a violation of the 5th ammendment?
 
Return of Dune said:
Can you ever be serious about the topic?
Click to expand...

uh....i was serious. is it your contention that the constitution only applies to US citizens? and are you suggesting we can just gun down anyone, anywhere if they are not american?

i'm not sure why you don't think it is a serious question, give your response when i asked about bin hidin was this:

Was Osama an american?
 
Return of Dune said:
Clearly Obama's legal advisors have determined that this is legaly justified.
Not what I am asking.
Do you think this is a violation of the 5th ammendment?
Click to expand...

you did ask - is this legal. so, that is in fact what you asked of me.

as to this different question, i would give a similar response, but imo, no, i don't think it is a violation. the guy has basically declared war against the US. he is basically running down the street with a gun shooting people, you don't read those people their rights first, you shoot them.

i may disagree with obama on most issues, but when it comes to national security, i give our president the benefit of the doubt. he has much more information than you and i have. it isn't like this guy is just roaming around yemen with no clue he is wanted for terrorism.
 
Yurt said:
uh....i was serious. is it your contention that the constitution only applies to US citizens? and are you suggesting we can just gun down anyone, anywhere if they are not american?

i'm not sure why you don't think it is a serious question, give your response when i asked about bin hidin was this:

Was Osama an american?
Click to expand...

I have had major reservations about drone attacks since I first heard of them.
Especialy when a drone takes out a large amount of people.
As for Bin Laden per se, I am sure his captors could/would make a case for self defense, in terms of his death, though surely (IMHO) he should have been captured, tried, then executed. I am generaly against the death penalty but in his case willing to make an exception.
 
Damocles said:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...er-one-awlaki-reportedly-killed-in-yemen?bn=1

Anwar al Awlaki, the U.S.-born cleric dubbed “Terrorist Number One” was reportedly killed Friday by an air strike in the mountains of Yemen.

A statement emailed from Yemen’s Washington embassy announced his death under with the subject line: “Breaking News: Awlaki Dead.”

The 40-year-old cleric was killed in the town of Kashef in Yemen’s north Jawf province, about 140 kilometres east of the capital Sanaa, according to the statement.

The news was at first greeted with skepticism as reports of the deaths of members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) are often false.

But unnamed U.S. government sources also confirmed the death to various American media outlets. A Yemeni security source told the Washington Post that Awlaki (sometimes spelled Aulaqi), was killed by an unmanned American drone.

More at link...
Click to expand...

One minute those on the right want every last Muslim dead...now we're indecisive, and unsure? You people slay me. Call me when common sense returns.
 
Elias Koteas said:
Its not as if these are US citizens who are vacationing out of the country. The man was an expatriate, actively living abroad, engaged in high-level terrorist activities, and commanding a station of leadership within al-Queda.
Click to expand...
what evidence provided to what jury in front of what judge in which court was it proven?
 
Yurt said:
so let me get this right....

you're not ok with gunning him down (or missile down), but you're ok with some secret court trying him in absentia? that takes as much faith as believing obama or a president knows this guy is a threat.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I wasn't O.K> with him being killed. I just want to make sure it was done legaly.
As far as I remember, Gerald Ford decreed that America wouldn't assassinate anyone. Now we kill our own citizens without trial.
Is a sham trial too much to ask?
One would assume of course, that there would be an actual judge present.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what evidence provided to what jury in front of what judge in which court was it proven?
Click to expand...

So, we went through this process to attack the British at Lexington, the Mexicans at Veracruz, the Confederates at Antietam, the Spanish at San Juan Hill, the Germans at Metz, the Japanese at Midway, the North Koreans at Inchon Harbor, the North Vietnamese during Tet, etc.?

Our courts don't run wars. That's what the President and the DoD are for.
 
Elias Koteas said:
So, we went through this process to attack the British at Lexington, the Mexicans at Veracruz, the Confederates at Antietam, the Spanish at San Juan Hill, the Germans at Metz, the Japanese at Midway, the North Koreans at Inchon Harbor, the North Vietnamese during Tet, etc.?

Our courts don't run wars. That's what the President and the DoD are for.
Click to expand...
is there a clause in the constitution that allows the feds to ignore the law of the land?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top