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.
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.
In Obama’s mind, yes he has the right. Another reason he must go.
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.
>>>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.
Ask Judas Roberts...
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.
>> 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.”
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.
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.
You can count on some left leaning prez eventually coming after FR thru some gov’t justification.
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 ..
Apparently. He’s done everything to kill the country, and no one has stopped him so far.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What we need is more lawyers.
I believed the Oathkeepers would have stepped in before now.
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”.
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.’
Only in the Thunderdome. But the citizen has an equal chance to get the president.
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.
Guess they haven't noticed Calypso Louie. I remember H. Rap Brown preaching revolution on street corners holding a rifle, he wasnt arrested as I recall.
There you go. Post of the day.
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.