Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does the President Have the Legal Right to Kill an American Citizen?

Posted on 07/04/2012 9:23:27 AM PDT by pinochet

Did you read this story, where Eric Holder said that the government has the right to kill American "terrorists" without trial? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/05/world/la-fg-holder-awlaki-20120306

America is going through the scariest period in its history. Too many Americans are sitting back on the couch, watching sports on TV and enjoying their cans of beer, and are clueless as to what is going on in America.

When Bill Clinton and Janet Reno murdered about 83 innocent people in Waco, Texas in 1993, it was illegal, despite the fact that the crime was not prosecuted. If the government was to repeat the Waco crime, it would be perfectly legal. Be scared. Be very scared.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: constitution; rights; terrorism; vanity
What will Omambi do in his second term? Will he send predator drones after tea partiers, because the media has portrayed them as unhinged nuts?

Will Supporters of the second ammendment right to bear arms, be labelled by Chuck Schumer and the Democrats as domestic terrorists who want guns for terrorist acts?

We may see predator drones being used in Texas, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Mississippi, and other places where enemies of Obama live. In the times in which we are living, you know very well that I am not being an alarmist.

1 posted on 07/04/2012 9:23:31 AM PDT by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pinochet

In Obama’s mind, yes he has the right. Another reason he must go.


2 posted on 07/04/2012 9:28:56 AM PDT by RC2 (Buy American and support the Wounded Warrior Project whenever possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
The problem here is obvious:

Great power is invested in the Commander in Chief, as it should be.

However? Voters made a terrible choice in giving Obama those powers.

If you take up arms against the United States, the fact that you are a “Citizen” really does not matter a hill of beans. “Foreign and Domestic” means just that. We do not have to Mirandize or arrest or grant due process to enemy combatants. We just don't.

The problem is that Obama and Holder and Napolitano are very likely to mislabel protesters and those exercising their rights against the government as “enemy combatants”.

Again, however, if a group of people are actively plotting armed rebellion, or are actively engaged in terrorism or sabotage or any form of violent uprising against the United States, our government is NOT required at all to give that person or that group ANY “due process”.

What is particularly galling is that Obama and Holder DID want to give “due process” to foreign terrorists!

The hypocrisy and idiocy are amazing.

3 posted on 07/04/2012 9:33:37 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

>>>If you take up arms against the United States, the fact that you are a “Citizen” really does not matter a hill of beans

We have to be very careful and do a cost/benefit analysis. Do the benefits that Americans get, from giving the government the right to kill citizens without due process, outweigh the costs? Do you trust politicians with the power to make life and death decisions, where American citizens are concerned? Are we going to see collateral damage take place in America, as is happening overseas? If your next door neighbor is a suspected domestic terrorist, could the government launch a predator drone attack on his home, and harm you in the process.

We need to remember that the Nazi terrorists who tried to sabotage American port facilities in World War Two, received a secret trial, before they were executed. Americans accused of terrorism today, have fewer rights than Nazi terrorists had in the 1940s.


4 posted on 07/04/2012 9:46:15 AM PDT by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

I’unno.

Ask Judas Roberts...


5 posted on 07/04/2012 9:48:59 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
'We do not have to Mirandize or arrest or grant due process to enemy combatants. We just don't.'

Haha. Of course you don't when a President can say your a 'enemy combatant'. Thus removing the problem!

We do not have a king, this love of the unitarian executive has got to end.

The vast powers of the military and authority of the armed forces are bestowed to Congress, not the President. He may be the CIC, but he must follow the rules and orders set forth from Congress.

6 posted on 07/04/2012 9:50:48 AM PDT by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

>> Eric Holder said that the government has the right to kill American “terrorists” without trial?

Sure; just think of it as a tax. “Your life is required of you by the government.”

Right John?


7 posted on 07/04/2012 9:56:18 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
If you take up arms against the United States, the fact that you are a “Citizen” really does not matter a hill of beans. “Foreign and Domestic” means just that.

Problem here. What do you call a government that was/is destroying the Rule of Established Law? Are those officials traitors? I cannot see armed rebellion, but I can see voting rebellion against the destruction of the Constitutional form of government we had. Does that mean that "opposing" the elected officials makes us an enemy of the nation? I am often told on the web that I should respect the POTUS. My response is that respect is earned not mandated. He has "earned" my total contempt. And his minions know it.

FUBO!

8 posted on 07/04/2012 10:05:23 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

The sticky point is in the definition of “enemy combatant”. If an American joins an enemy army or terrorist group actively engaged in the violent overthrow of the American government seems, at first glance, a safe definition. However, the potential for abuse by the government is huge.

Rush Limbaugh is actively engaged in the overthrow of this specific group currently running the government. All that is missing is the “violent overthrow” part. Any “right wing violence” could be used as a pretext to shut him down and the connections could be fabricated particularly if he were to be shown to know the perpetrators.

Electing honorable representatives to government has never worked all that well recently. Few are to be found.


9 posted on 07/04/2012 10:09:58 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

You can count on some left leaning prez eventually coming after FR thru some gov’t justification.


10 posted on 07/04/2012 10:15:08 AM PDT by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
Does the President Have the Legal Right to Kill an American Citizen?

Of course he does...who's going to stop him...Holder? Congress? The Constitution ? The SCOTUS ?

All bought and paid for or ignored as archaic ..

11 posted on 07/04/2012 10:26:41 AM PDT by Popman (When you elect a clown: expect a circus...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Apparently. He’s done everything to kill the country, and no one has stopped him so far.


12 posted on 07/04/2012 10:47:31 AM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
“If you take up arms against the United States, the fact that you are a “Citizen” really does not matter a hill of beans.”

Did David Koresh “take up arms against the United States?”
Did Randy Weaver “take up arms against the United States?”
Emphatically NO! The government decided they must die. Koresh and 80 followers did. Vicki and Sammy Weaver died. Only Randy Weaver survived. If he had not, we would all have believed the lies the government told.
In the Branch Davidians massacre, the story got out despite the media.
Not much difference from the official stories told about some battles in the 19th century Indian Wars.

13 posted on 07/04/2012 11:00:54 AM PDT by Tupelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Great power is invested in the Commander in Chief, as it should be.

If we were a kingdom, maybe, but we are not. The mistake of giving too much power to the President has nothing to do with Obama being president. It would be too much even for a reincarnation of President Jefferson.

We learned that a long time ago with the Alien and Sedition Act, but we forgot.

The problem is that Obama and Holder and Napolitano are very likely to mislabel protesters and those exercising their rights against the government as “enemy combatants”.

Too late, it's already happened. And it wasn't a simple 'mislabel'ing, it was intentional. It was the intention from the beginning. Dissent is no longer patriotic.

14 posted on 07/04/2012 11:04:48 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

If the American citizen, unlike David Koresch, has moved to Pakistan, joined the Taliban, and is conspiring with them to kill Americans, then a good case can be made that his citizenship does not protect him, any more than it protected rebels during our Civil War.


15 posted on 07/04/2012 11:52:30 AM PDT by Socon-Econ (Socon-Econ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Things that seem to be good ideas when a trusted president is in office have to be thought through before Supporting them. How do these ideas seem if they become enacted and someone from the other side is administering them?


16 posted on 07/04/2012 11:59:32 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

What we need is more lawyers.


17 posted on 07/04/2012 12:26:13 PM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

I believed the Oathkeepers would have stepped in before now.


18 posted on 07/04/2012 12:29:05 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam (Please, God, when I wake up tomorrow, can Joe Biden be President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

After the ObamaCare ruling, I’m sure the Administration would argue that Roberts legalized “attacks on decent Americans” simultaneously with authorizing “a tax on decent Americans”.


19 posted on 07/04/2012 12:34:14 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

More to the point - does the president give a rat’s *ss WHAT he has the “legal right” to do?

The answer, of course, is, ‘Certainly not.’


20 posted on 07/04/2012 1:04:06 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Only in the Thunderdome. But the citizen has an equal chance to get the president.


21 posted on 07/04/2012 6:56:10 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Evidently he does. Obama has killed 2 that I know of, one that needed killing and another that was a 16 year old American citizen born of a Muslim nut. This is too much power for any one man to have and should be legislated against. I’m fine with killing the enemy on the battlefield during a firefight no matter what citizenship he holds. I am a bit less sanguine about Obama or any POTUS making lists of American citizens to be assasinated. Killing 16 year olds not on any wanted list crosses a big line but the left are hypocrites and the right doesn’t have the wherewithal to make the argument that Obama crossed a big line when he assasinated that kid. And collateral damage doesn’t excuse it.


22 posted on 07/04/2012 7:10:05 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Again, however, if a group of people are actively plotting armed rebellion, or are actively engaged in terrorism or sabotage or any form of violent uprising against the United States, our government is NOT required at all to give that person or that group ANY “due process”.

Guess they haven't noticed Calypso Louie. I remember H. Rap Brown preaching revolution on street corners holding a rifle, he wasn’t arrested as I recall.

23 posted on 07/04/2012 7:13:19 PM PDT by itsahoot (The Political Elites are the modern Royals, and the king shall have his due.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
What we need is more lawyers.

There you go. Post of the day.</sarcasm>

24 posted on 07/04/2012 7:17:32 PM PDT by itsahoot (The Political Elites are the modern Royals, and the king shall have his due.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
We may see predator drones being used in Texas

We may see the use of a 12 gauge in Texas.
25 posted on 07/04/2012 7:24:20 PM PDT by jy8z (From the next to last exit before the end of the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo; All
Calm down.
I too was very angry and outspoken against the Waco and the Ruby Ridge disasters.
In both cases, the ATF or other government agents went for the headlines and used excessive force.
In the Koresh case, he had a routine schedule and could have easily been arrested on his way into town, with much less risk to others.

However, I still say that historically, and legally, if it is decided that a military threat exists, that threat can be dealt with BY OUR MILITARY!

It does not matter if the enemy combatants are citizens or not.

They can be shot for taking up arms. They can be shot for acts of violent rebellion.

Would you prefer a blood bath, if we try to arrest a small army on our own soil?

Our problem, currently, is that our Commander in Chief can not be trusted with the same powers we gave to President Lincoln.

26 posted on 07/05/2012 7:10:43 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson