PDA

View Full Version : Is it OK to kill him?



depittydawg
05-14-2010, 09:21 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html?hp
The Obama administrationís decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism...

cotts135
05-14-2010, 03:11 PM
This is an escalation of the Bush, Cheney assault on the Constitution. First we were told that we were only taken the rights of Non citizens. There were some exceptions to this such as eavesdropping of individuals communications and the imprisonment of Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi without due process.
Now clearly we have gone beyond this and we see members of Congress trying to introduce legislation to abridge the rights of accused terrorists without due process. Also AG Holder has recently stated that the narrowly defined public safety option should be expanded when it comes to reading accused terrorists their Miranda rights. This in addition to trying the accused in a military tribunal. Let's remember even John Walker Lindh who was actually captured on the battlefieldwas tried and convicted in, civilian court' even after being read his Miranda rights. And of course now we have the Obama administration claiming that they now can assassinate U.S. citizens no matter where he might be found.
Even though Bush/Cheney might have started this, President Obama has perpetuated it and has made it worse. As I read on another blog this neither a liberal or conservative stance and it doesn't matter if your a Bush apologist or Obama one..................this can only be described as an Authoritarian stance.

road kill
05-14-2010, 03:17 PM
This is an escalation of the Bush, Cheney assault on the Constitution. First we were told that we were only taken the rights of Non citizens. There were some exceptions to this such as eavesdropping of individuals communications and the imprisonment of Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi without due process.
Now clearly we have gone beyond this and we see members of Congress trying to introduce legislation to abridge the rights of accused terrorists without due process. Also AG Holder has recently stated that the narrowly defined public safety option should be expanded when it comes to reading accused terrorists their Miranda rights. This in addition to trying the accused in a military tribunal. Let's remember even John Walker Lindh who was actually captured on the battlefieldwas tried and convicted in, civilian court' even after being read his Miranda rights. And of course now we have the Obama administration claiming that they now can assassinate U.S. citizens no matter where he might be found.
Even though Bush/Cheney might have started this, President Obama has perpetuated it and has made it worse. As I read on another blog this neither a liberal or conservative stance and it doesn't matter if your a Bush apologist or Obama one..................this can only be described as an Authoritarian stance.

Once again, a reference to the GOLD standard.

Hope & Change thingy!!:cool:




rk

cotts135
05-14-2010, 04:17 PM
Once again, a reference to the GOLD standard.

Hope & Change thingy!!:cool:




rk

Boy, you guys are sensitive to any post that might mention Bush in a bad light. :rolleyes: I think I mentioned that Obama has expanded and has made worse these Constitutional violations.

subroc
05-14-2010, 04:25 PM
do or did you ever reference clinton when refering to any policy started by him and continued by former 2 term President George W. Bush? Maybe the part that clinton also believed there were weapons of mass destrucion in Iraq?

depittydawg
05-14-2010, 06:15 PM
do or did you ever reference clinton when refering to any policy started by him and continued by former 2 term President George W. Bush? Maybe the part that clinton also believed there were weapons of mass destrucion in Iraq?

Here's an answer to the "kill him?" Question. Give him the option. Publicly demand that he come face the charges in the US. Or he will be executed at our earliest opportunity. If he's innocent, let him step forward. If he's guilty, which it seems he probably is, then he is plotting to kill Americans every day and needs to be eliminated before he's successful.

road kill
05-14-2010, 06:29 PM
do or did you ever reference clinton when refering to any policy started by him and continued by former 2 term President George W. Bush? Maybe the part that clinton also believed there were weapons of mass destrucion in Iraq?
Let me take the initiative here and answer your rhetorical question;

NO!!!!:D





rk

cotts135
05-14-2010, 06:38 PM
do or did you ever reference clinton when refering to any policy started by him and continued by former 2 term President George W. Bush? Maybe the part that clinton also believed there were weapons of mass destrucion in Iraq?

Trust me I don't have any problem calling out any politician regardless of party, but this thread is not about Bush or Obama or your strawman argument about weapons of mass destruction it's about the gradual increase the government has over our lives and the abuse of Constitutional rights,which should have us all concerned.

depittydawg
05-15-2010, 06:31 PM
Let me take the initiative here and answer your rhetorical question;

NO!!!!:D
rk

The subject of the thread has nothing to do with WMD or Iraq. It is simply, does the US federal government have the legal and moral authority to execute one of its citizens without due process? Its a tough question. The last 3 Presidents say yes they do.