Is there ever a good reason to allow the killing of American citizens without due process?

American Thinker ^ | 02/07/2013 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Assassination is murder, murder by definition is illegal and immoral.

1) Aren’t we at war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

2) Pakistan (whether we believe them or not ) tells us that they tried their darned best to find Bin Laden but could not.

3) We found Bin Laden and knew where he was and know that he was hiding just a few miles from Pakistan’s Military base...
Is it your contention that we should not have taken him out and just let him go and continue allowing him to give orders to his cells to kill Americans everywhere?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Bin Laden was a self-declared, well-documented, military commander who openly bragged about, as well as “took responsibility for,” many acts of homicidal aggression. Not just “suspected.”

Furthermore, he was not a U.S. citizen and thus would not (legally) be covered under the U.S. Constitution’s 14 Amendment, which states that no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

___________________

Here’s a theoretical question for you... what if Bin Laden was BORN IN THE USA? That makes him an American Citizen by birth.

What if he was taken after birth by his father to Yemen and then grew up to be what he became...

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Given these, is he still protected by the 14th Amendment?

[American in Israel]

There is only one reason to bypass due process, and that is to break the law. Due Process is the check and balance to unrequited power in the hands of men. If a person is doing something that is liable for the death penalty, Due Process will have no problem convicting him.

The very words themselves are DUE (as in required) PROCESS (as in steps to be taken, or laws to be followed). If there are no steps required to be taken to execute a citizen, you have a complete Fascist Dictatorship.

Not taking Due Process is taking the law into your own hands, the right to murder with impunity.

Due Process is taken in war between two opposed belligerent sides, both of your examples. A war is declared, and people make their choices and pay the price for it.

But in this case, there is no process at all, a citizen is thought to be helping someone who we do not have a legally declared war with, and someone somewhere can arbitrarily decide that he deserves execution. That this question can be posed is a indication of how far from the process of Justice and Law this country has fallen.

[SeekAndFind]

RE; : I presume you’d be opposed to President Obama having the power to tax at will.

ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO TAX. THE PRESIDENT CAN ONLY EXECUTE WHAT CONGRESS PASSES BY LAW.

RE: Why would anyone want him to have the power to kill at will?

Why can’t we pass a law that allows targeted killings of enemies/traitors of America ( American Citizen or not ) based on EVIDENCE GATHERED?

I see no reason why we can’t create a LEGAL KILL LIST based on consultation and consent of Congress and the Courts.

In fact, I do not even object to making this KILL LIST public based on evidence gathered. That would be like an international WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE LIST. We don’t have to show HOW the evidence was gathered... all we need to show publicly is WHY they are on the kill list.

Heck, does anybody believe that Osama Bin Laden or Anwar Al-Awlaki or Abu Al Zarqawi and now Al Qaeda leader and successor to Bin Ladin — Al Zawahiri can’t be PUBLICLY in our kill list?

They have OPENLY DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA, War in the 21st century is not bound by geographical location anymore.

I see no reason why we should not be flexible enough to fight this kind of war today.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: A war is declared, and people make their choices and pay the price for it.

Well, we are at war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the terrorists.

We declared a WAR ON TERROR since 9/11. So, the belligerents who chose the side of the terrorists have made their choices. I see no reason why the should not pay the price for it.

[Count of Monte Fisto]

The Founding Fathers were geniuses and there is a Constitutional solution to this. If an American citizen is such a threat to USA that he needs to be killed then Congress can issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal as defined in Article 1 Section 8.

But the criminals that occupy our government want to have the executive power to kill Americans in secret and without oversight. Why? Its obvious to any thinking adult that has the slightest grasp of history. The Patriot Act, the NDAA, the DHS, the TSA was always meant, since the day they were created by the arch globalist George Bush, to go after the American people.

[American in Israel]

From the US Code,18 USC § 2381 - Treason >p> Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I know its a bit off subject, but wouldn't supplying arms to Al Queda, and then refusing to offer aid to a American Diplomat to cover the operation make a certain Kenyan Presidente incapable of holding the office?

Only Obama could make or not make the call to help the Diplomat, and it is pretty certain that the operation was to supply arms to Al Queda.

From Art. 3, section 3 of the US Constitution:

"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."

Is this why Hillery fall down and go boom, and so many Generals are being sacked? Is this why the big gun push, to raise a smoke screen?

If you can kill an American without Due Process, what about prosecuting them WITH Due Process!

[Pecos]

The reason to do it is when you want to prove that you have the power to get away with that or anything else. It’s called intimidation (aka, the Chicago Way). See also, the Overton Window.

[SeekAndFind]

A A “letter of marque and reprisal” would involve permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.

That was issued during the time of mass piracy overseas and privateers were commissioned to do this.

Here’s a question — DO DRONE KILLINGS meet the above requirements?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It’s called intimidation (aka, the Chicago Way). See also, the Overton Window.

Not to defend Obama here, but Bush Jr. had his share of drone strikes OUTSIDE the theater of war as well. Obama magnified the strikes ten fold.

[Little Ray]

Sure. IF they fighting for or providing support to enemy forces they should be subject to death. If they’re captured they should be tried for treason and, if found guilty, shot.

But a Declaration of War should be required first. If the enemy is an NGO or NGOs then should be a declaration by Congress roughly equivalent to a Declaration of War to the effect of “Where ever you are, we are going find you. When we find you, we are going to kill you. We are also going to kill your supporters, logistics train, camp followers, financiers, arms dealers, etc.”

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If you can kill an American without Due Process, what about prosecuting them WITH Due Process!

Here’s a question -— how do you apply due process to an American like Al-Awlaki who DOES NOT LIVE in the USA and HAS NO INTENTION of ever coming back (other than as a conqueror )?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If the enemy is an NGO or NGOs then should be a declaration by Congress roughly equivalent to a Declaration of War to the effect of “Where ever you are, we are going find you. When we find you, we are going to kill you. We are also going to kill your supporters, logistics train, camp followers, financiers, arms dealers, etc.”

Well, in this case, the NGO is Al-Qaeda (and the Taliban by proxy). Didn’t we declare war on them after 9/11/2001?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You've already specified, in your theoretical, that in this case he'd be a U.S. Citizen. As such, he'd be covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, by definition.

Bring charges and do whatever follows. If you're trying to make an arrest and he resists, shoot him. There at least you have the bare bones of a Constitutional action.

Or do you favor unconstituional action in defense of the Constitution?

Maybe we should just give Obama unlimited power to do whatever he wants, for whatever Constitution he wants?

In the present instance, we don't even know --- really --- why these people were targetted. I could be they were just the rivals of some bigger, badder terrorist group --- some other sect, some other faction --- that Obama just happens to favor. Why wouldn't that be the case? Because Obama says so? He kills: why wouldn't he lie?

[Little Ray]

I think we did. So killing an “American” in the service of Al Qaeda or the Taliban is okay with me.

And the declaration gives notice that it is time to man up or give up. So if Congress declares against “bitter clingers” we know what we need to do next.

I guess the main thing is that the President should need authorization, equivalent to a Declaration of War, to start a such a process.

[Mr. K]

I can’t believe I am agreeing with Obama, but when an amercian citizen joins the enemy then he become... THE ENEMY and you can kill him any time you want

What I DO object to is the media hypocracy- if this was Bush, they would be demanding impeachment.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Something even FReepers won’t do these days.

[DBeers]

1) Aren’t we at war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

UNLESS they hide in a mosque. Figure that one out. Assassinating suspected US citizen OK except in a mosque.

[SeekAndFind]

RE; Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Something even FReepers won’t do these days.

That statement of course makes this assumption -— KILLING PEOPLE LIKE AL-AWLAKI, WHO HAS DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA AND WHO AIDS, ABETS, COMMANDS AND ENCOURAGES MEN LIKE THE NIGERIAN BOMBER AND COLONEL HASSAN TO COMMIT ACTS OF TERRORISM -— is unconstitutional.

We DID declare war on terror. The main terrorists is a group called Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda committed numerous acts of terror culminating in 9/11 and after than MORE.

Al-Awlaki, an American PUBLICLY tells us that he supports and fights for Al Qaeda and has PUBLICLY declared himself to be an enemy combatant.

That is in fact, the purpose of this thread — to determine whether it is constitutional to kill him when we hs sided with the enemy AT WAR.

Please don’t make an assumption without first proving it.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Bring charges and do whatever follows. If you’re trying to make an arrest and he resists, shoot him

Osama Bin Ladin has already been PUBLICLY CHARGED of being the number one terrorist we are after.

As for trying to make an arrest, we are not talking about arresting him in American soil ( he isn’t going to be here ).

So, given that he (theoretically) was born American, and given that we have publicly charged him to be a terrorist responsible for 9/11 and given that he PUBLICLY acknowledges his guilt and in fact, flaunts it, is it unconstitutional for us, after having found him to be in Pakistan, to go after him?

BTW, we have a legal process called LETTER OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, which in the past, given a lot of piracy overseas, gave permission for privateers to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) our borders.

It is entirely in keeping with the constitution to issue such a letter should another American be a top Al Qaeda leader.