U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says

[Glockout]

Sometimes you gotta know when to show them, sometimes you have to know when to hold them. An online forum is no place to show them.

 

[Rhino]

The whole problem boils down to, does a person who fights the gov't lose their citizenship. Not until they renounce it or are brought up on charges. That can be a trial in absentia but it still requires an open trial to come to a finding of guilt. None of that happened in several cases. Therefore the gov't HAS violated the Constitution. That also makes the current occupier of the WH, a terrorist.

That begs a question. If they're overseas acting as a combatant against the US, does their citizenship matter? If someone is taking up arms against our country, do we really need to worry about their citizenship before fighting back? I don't think it should matter in those circumstances. We're talking about war, not a burglary.

 

[BluesStringer]

Here's an example of cops using deadly force on a fleeing perpetrator, which is what I was talking about. It's just one of many such videos.

And the cops weren't arrested or charged. No mention of warrants. No mention of autonomous authority or the administration. Just simply the principle of law that deadly force can sometimes legally be used to stop a fleeing perpetrator depending on the danger he represents. Nothing more.

This is "nothing more" than a fleeing suspect? The guy assaulted the officers with a deadly weapon: His car. They were not only the primary chasers of the suspected felon, they were the primary eye-witnesses to subsequent felonies perpetrated against they, themselves. Only in Chicago, NYC and D.C. would it be illegal for anyone to use deadly force in defense of their own lives in that situation. It is absolutely nothing like what Holder was talking about in the phrase you originally replied to. I can't believe that I have to walk on such thin eggshells as to not be able to call that phrase exactly what it is, the title of the thread, but there it is. Link Removed
.

If we hadn't gotten off onto the tangent of things I never mentioned and wasn't referring to, one thing of interest that I was considering was jurisdiction. Do our laws even apply there, and in what way? Much the same arguments have been made over Guantanamo. Are they citizens? Criminals? Combatants? What laws apply? Where do they apply? Do host nation laws or our laws take precedence in such situations? For me personally, and it's just my opinion, he would be considered a enemy combatant rather than just an ordinary citizen suspected of a crime. And since Yemen is apparently authorizing these strikes, my guess is they feel the same way.

So now we're talking about Americans being targeted for autonomously-ordered killings by the President or other US government officials? Well, welcome to the party! Jeesh.

First, I only emphasized the word "he" because there is more than one American citizen who has already been killed absent any due process. While I have no particular legal problem with either Anwar al Awlaki or Samir Khan being killed under the provisions of the authorization for the use of force against al Qaida and its allies by Congress, I have a major problem with Awlaki's 16-year-old son being killed in the same way two weeks later. As you pointed out earlier in the thread, the administration claims he wasn't "the intended" target, but how do we hold our government accountable for such dictatorial processes if they won't give us any details about how anyone ends up on the kill list of "intended" targets? And why was Gibbs so cavalier about the son's killing when asked about it? He never even intimated that he was just collateral damage as the administration later asserted. Here's the video if you want to hear it from his own mouth, but here's the transcript too that should suffice:

SIERRA ADAMSON: "Do you think that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, who was an American citizen, is justifiable?"
ROBERT GIBBS: "I'm not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki's son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship."
SIERRA ADAMSON: "His son was still an American citizen."
ROBERT GIBBS: "Did great harm to people in this country and was a regional al-Qaeda commander hoping to inflict harm and destruction on people that share his religion and others in this country. And..."
SIERRA ADAMSON: "That's an American citizen that's being targeted without due process of law, without trial. And he's underage. He's a minor."
ROBERT GIBBS: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father. If they're truly concerned about the well-being of their children, I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

Instead of characterizing it myself, I'll just ask, is there anything troubling to you about a 16 year old citizen being killed with no public information available about the evidence against him tying him to al Qaida through anything other than guilt-by-association, and the president's spokesperson (at the time) blames it on the kid because he didn't "have a far more responsible father?"

Blues

 

[ezkl2230]

Where do people come up with this stuff? It's appalling that any American citizen could believe in such despotic concepts, but one who thinks they believe in the Constitution by virtue of their support for the 2nd Amendment, who also thinks deeming someone guilty of being a treasonous terrorist, goes well beyond simply being appallingly ignorant. Support for tyranny is evil.

Blues

Read this article that recently appeared in the english version of Pravda for your answer, and to get your mind blown (BTW - I have never read Pravda before; this link was posted on FB by the Rockford, MI, Tea Party)! The Russkies have it figured out! Too bad the American public can't see it.

Link Removed

 

[ezkl2230]

Where have you been for the last 4 years? The oblame-someone-else and his minions have been shredding the US Constitution little by little every day. Pelosi and Big Sis have both said we are the problem. Do NOT doubt for a second that Big Sis is not monitoring this forum. This administration most likely knows more about all who are on here than they EVER wanted to know about Benghazi.

OK -- I know some folks are going to take issue with this one, but that's too bad. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I'm not going to blame dems but turn a blind eye to repubs.

Let's not forget one little fact -- NONE of this would have been possible if it hadn't been for "W" setting the stage with the Patriot Act, secret courts, secret justice dept. memos and rulings, the State Secrets doctrine, warrantless EVERYTHING, use of national security letters, and a whole slew of other secret expansions of federal power. I voted for the man both times, but the fact remains that "W" initiated some of the most far-reaching attacks on civil liberties in the name of "national security" of any president in our nation's history - and I said so even as I cast my votes for him. "W" is the one who established the notion that asymmetrical warfare requires us to give up certain Constitutional RIGHTS. "W" was the one who established the notion that any tool that makes it easier for law enforcement to get their hand on our personal information (regardless of the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments) is a good thing. The Bill of Rights was implemented for the opposite reason - to make things HARDER for the government, to hold them to a higher standard. Because anything that makes it easier for the government also guarantees that their authority is going to be ABUSED.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

So what we are witnessing now is Obama taking the Bush understanding of federal power to its next logical step. Bush made it easy; he removed ALL of the Constitutional checks and balances, and his SCOTUS appointees insured that his understanding of federal power would be with us for the next twenty years after he left office. Until the States and the People reassert their rightful CONSTITUTIONAL authority as the masters of the federal government, that isn't going to stop.

 

[BluesStringer]

OK -- I know some folks are going to take issue with this one, but that's too bad. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I'm not going to blame dems but turn a blind eye to repubs.

Let's not forget one little fact -- NONE of this would have been possible if it hadn't been for "W" setting the stage with the Patriot Act, secret courts, secret justice dept. memos and rulings, the State Secrets doctrine, warrantless EVERYTHING, use of national security letters, and a whole slew of other secret expansions of federal power. I voted for the man both times, but the fact remains that "W" initiated some of the most far-reaching attacks on civil liberties in the name of "national security" of any president in our nation's history - and I said so even as I cast my votes for him. "W" is the one who established the notion that asymmetrical warfare requires us to give up certain Constitutional RIGHTS. "W" was the one who established the notion that any tool that makes it easier for law enforcement to get their hand on our personal information (regardless of the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments) is a good thing. The Bill of Rights was implemented for the opposite reason - to make things HARDER for the government, to hold them to a higher standard. Because anything that makes it easier for the government also guarantees that their authority is going to be ABUSED.



So what we are witnessing now is Obama taking the Bush understanding of federal power to its next logical step. Bush made it easy; he removed ALL of the Constitutional checks and balances, and his SCOTUS appointees insured that his understanding of federal power would be with us for the next twenty years after he left office. Until the States and the People reassert their rightful CONSTITUTIONAL authority as the masters of the federal government, that isn't going to stop.

Thanks for the link in your previous post, but as to this one, all I have to say is......

​

 

[newgirl]

I read in history that Hitler's Gestapo started in just this way. A little here, them more there, then finally total terror.

 

[Stan45]

U.S. law has always allowed that.

The US Secret Service has always trained for that.

 

[Glockout]

I read in history that Hitler's Gestapo started in just this way. A little here, them more there, then finally total terror.

Hitler also used false flag "terrorist" ops to bring about his party and all of the things it stood for. The "bombing" of the Reichstag was a prime example. I'm not saying that the American government would ever do such a thing, however. I firmly believe Tim McVeigh solely took down the OKC building. I also believe it was the work of Osama Bin Laden that took down WTC. These terrorists must be stopped. Weather American or not. And I am in full support of taking our rights away if that is what it takes for that outcome to come to fruition.

 

[Stan45]

I see we have a few people that have NOT been drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[mappow]

I've got no problem with revoking Executive Order 12333. My problem is IF it's a US Citizen, then due process AND only due process is required prior to a sentence of death. JMHO................If it ain't according to the US Constitution, it ain't Legal.

 

[Glockout]

I've got no problem with revoking Executive Order 12333. My problem is IF it's a US Citizen, then due process AND only due process is required prior to a sentence of death. JMHO................If it ain't according to the US Constitution, it ain't Legal.

We must stop the terrorists. At all cost. I mean they flew planes into WTC. And that dickhead McVeigh was an American acting alone at OKC. That evil terrorist David Koresh had fully automatic weapons and practiced a religion not approved by the government. That crazy militia guy who had all of those weapons at Emerald Ridge as well. They all deserve to get what they got. They are terrorists. Terrorists get what they deserve for what they dish out. How dare they practice an unknown religion or have weapons? Terrorists. Terror. Face of terror. The evil terrorists. Terror.

 

[gunnerbob]

We must stop the terrorists. At all cost. I mean they flew planes into WTC. And that dickhead McVeigh was an American acting alone at OKC. That evil terrorist David Koresh had fully automatic weapons and practiced a religion not approved by the government. That crazy militia guy who had all of those weapons at Emerald Ridge as well. They all deserve to get what they got. They are terrorists. Terrorists get what they deserve for what they dish out. How dare they practice an unknown religion or have weapons? Terrorists. Terror. Face of terror. The evil terrorists. Terror.

NOPE.


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~Benjamin Franklin~

Mind you, I'm an OEF/OIF veteran with combat experiance. I've been there and done that fighting against the "terrorists" in Afghanistan, 7 months as a 240 gunner(hence the name)...

It's easy to say that we need to beat them AT ALL COSTS... but, you get into the true meaning of that... and we all lose.

 

[Glockout]

NOPE.


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~Benjamin Franklin~

Mind you, I'm an OEF/OIF veteran with combat experiance. I've been there and done that fighting against the "terrorists" in Afghanistan, 7 months as a 240 gunner(hence the name)...

It's easy to say that we need to beat them AT ALL COSTS... but, you get into the true meaning of that... and we all lose.

I would never question the safety my government has provided for me much less the the means in which they provide it. I sleep better knowing those evil terrorists like Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, Osama bin laden and the like are not around to terrorize. They know nothing but terror. They are terrorists with faces of terror that reign terrorism down onto the terror stricken populations for which they terrorize. Terrorists are terror filled with their terrorist ways terrorizing people for the sole purpose of causing terror. It's terrorizing to think these terrorists walk amongst our terror filled society and I think the terror that the terrorists inflict upon said terrorized society must be stopped at all cost. Terror.

 

[gunnerbob]

I would never question the safety my government has provided for me much less the the means in which they provide it. I sleep better knowing those evil terrorists like Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, Osama bin laden and the like are not around to terrorize. They know nothing but terror. They are terrorists with faces of terror that reign terrorism down onto the terror stricken populations for which they terrorize. Terrorists are terror filled with their terrorist ways terrorizing people for the sole purpose of causing terror. It's terrorizing to think these terrorists walk amongst our terror filled society and I think the terror that the terrorists inflict upon said terrorized society must be stopped at all cost. Terror.

After laughing b/c you used the word "terror, terrorists, terrorizing or terrorized" 19 times....

I think you may be either trolling, trying to make me laugh or don't understand Liberty.

 

[ezkl2230]

I've got no problem with revoking Executive Order 12333. My problem is IF it's a US Citizen, then due process AND only due process is required prior to a sentence of death. JMHO................If it ain't according to the US Constitution, it ain't Legal.

OK - but the question is, does Due Process include Judicial Process, as is established under the Fifth Amendment, or do you agree with Holder's argument that Due Process does not require Judicial Process - only an assertion by the government that a citizen presents a clear and present danger and can therefore be terminated with extreme prejudice without presentation of a grand jury indictment or a criminal trial? Because under the Fifth Amendment, the only time a citizen can be convicted of a capital or infamous crime without a grand jury indictment and criminal trial is when they are serving in the military during a time of war or public danger, in which case they are subject to court martial and punishment under the UCMJ.

Now, the crime we are discussing is treason. Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason, specifies how treason may be dealt with, and specifies who may prescribe the penalty for treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Treason by definition involves one or more actions - carrying out war against the US individually or as a group (ie, domestic terrorists), joining a foreign organization engaged in such activities against the US (foreign military or terrorist organization), or providing aid and comfort to domestic or foreign entities engaged in such activities against the US. Section 3 still requires judicial process that includes either the direct testimony of two or more eyewitnesses to a given treasonous act committed by a citizen or confession IN OPEN COURT by the traitor. Finally - and this is the clincher, CONGRESS - AND ONLY CONGRESS - has the Constitutional authority to declare the punishment for treason, NOT THE PRESIDENT. Section 3 ends by stating that punishment, such as forfeiture of property or even death, MAY ONLY BE APPLIED TO THE PERSON(S) COMMITTING AND CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF TREASON - THE PUNISHMENT MAY NOT BE EXTENDED TO INNOCENT FAMILY MEMBERS OF THAT PERSON. So if death is declared as punishment, only the traitor may be killed. If forfeiture of property is involved, the forfeiture applies only during the lifetime of the traitor, and any property that was forfeited must be inheritable by the heirs of the traitor upon his/her death. Section 3, then, requires extraordinary rendition of a traitor living in a foreign land so that he/she may be tried in open court for their crimes - not death by drone to the traitor and any innocent family members who may have been present when the missile was fired.

As a side note, it still amazes me that the administration argues that it is immoral to punish the children of illegals for the crimes of their parents, but has no problem at all saying, "Oh well, stuff happens," when such an incident involves the innocent child of a citizen engaged in criminal activities against the US. This administration has consistently shown more concern for illegals and their families than it has for the citizens it is sworn to protect.

 

[Glockout]

After laughing b/c you used the word "terror, terrorists, terrorizing or terrorized" 19 times....

I think you may be either trolling, trying to make me laugh or don't understand Liberty.

I'm just trying to prove how easy it is to fill the masses with fear using words such as terror. Like at the republican national convention. They used that friggin word like a hundred times. All as a means to scare people into believing this stuff was real and to trust them to do something about it. Which I have full faith they are doing and will do. Something about the terrorists. Terror.

 

[ezkl2230]

Instead of characterizing it myself, I'll just ask, is there anything troubling to you about a 16 year old citizen being killed with no public information available about the evidence against him tying him to al Qaida through anything other than guilt-by-association, and the president's spokesperson (at the time) blames it on the kid because he didn't "have a far more responsible father?"

Blues

Gibbs' response is a violation of Section 3 of the Constitution, which specifies that the punishment for treason can only be applied to the person who has been so convicted in open court. Section 3 specifically prohibits application of the punishment for treason to anyone other than the convicted traitor. And since Section 3 mandates that the traitor must be tried in open court where either the testimony of two or more eyewitnesses must be given or the traitor must confess to his/her crimes, the solution is extreme rendition, not execution of the un-tried by drone. Section 3 further stipulates that only CONGRESS can prescribe the punishment for treason - not the president.

If the president doesn't like the limitations imposed by the Constitution, then the solution is to convince Congress that an amendment is needed.

 

[mappow]

OK - but the question is, does Due Process include Judicial Process, as is established under the Fifth Amendment, or do you agree with Holder's argument that Due Process does not require Judicial Process - only an assertion by the government that a citizen presents a clear and present danger and can therefore be terminated with extreme prejudice without presentation of a grand jury indictment or a criminal trial? Because under the Fifth Amendment, the only time a citizen can be convicted of a capital or infamous crime without a grand jury indictment and criminal trial is when they are serving in the military during a time of war or public danger, in which case they are subject to court martial and punishment under the UCMJ.

Now, the crime we are discussing is treason. Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason, specifies how treason may be dealt with, and specifies who may prescribe the penalty for treason.



Treason by definition involves one or more actions - carrying out war against the US individually or as a group (ie, domestic terrorists), joining a foreign organization engaged in such activities against the US (foreign military or terrorist organization), or providing aid and comfort to domestic or foreign entities engaged in such activities against the US. Section 3 still requires judicial process that includes either the direct testimony of two or more eyewitnesses to a given treasonous act committed by a citizen or confession IN OPEN COURT by the traitor. Finally - and this is the clincher, CONGRESS - AND ONLY CONGRESS - has the Constitutional authority to declare the punishment for treason, NOT THE PRESIDENT. Section 3 ends by stating that punishment, such as forfeiture of property or even death, MAY ONLY BE APPLIED TO THE PERSON(S) COMMITTING AND CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF TREASON - THE PUNISHMENT MAY NOT BE EXTENDED TO INNOCENT FAMILY MEMBERS OF THAT PERSON. So if death is declared as punishment, only the traitor may be killed. If forfeiture of property is involved, the forfeiture applies only during the lifetime of the traitor, and any property that was forfeited must be inheritable by the heirs of the traitor upon his/her death. Section 3, then, requires extraordinary rendition of a traitor living in a foreign land so that he/she may be tried in open court for their crimes - not death by drone to the traitor and any innocent family members who may have been present when the missile was fired.

As a side note, it still amazes me that the administration argues that it is immoral to punish the children of illegals for the crimes of their parents, but has no problem at all saying, "Oh well, stuff happens," when such an incident involves the innocent child of a citizen engaged in criminal activities against the US. This administration has consistently shown more concern for illegals and their families than it has for the citizens it is sworn to protect.

Yes, Due Process includes Judicial Process unless as you state you're active duty then the UCMJ takes precedence.

 

[S&W645]

Hitler also used false flag "terrorist" ops to bring about his party and all of the things it stood for. The "bombing" of the Reichstag was a prime example. I'm not saying that the American government would ever do such a thing, however. I firmly believe Tim McVeigh solely took down the OKC building. I also believe it was the work of Osama Bin Laden that took down WTC. These terrorists must be stopped. Weather American or not. And I am in full support of taking our rights away if that is what it takes for that outcome to come to fruition.

Taking our rights away will just lead to a socialist government. While someone may deserve killing, it should never be done by a secret court or trial. And that is what is required by the Constitution. No trial and conviction of a US citizen = murder unless it is in a declared war.