No due process

I consider him an illegal combatant making war on the U.S. on foreign soil.

He got what he had coming. I don't care what his nationality is.

 

Out of the mouths of the enemies of our God and our nation Robert:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/hamas-pm-we-are-a-nation-of-jihad-and-martyrdom.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/115333/nation-jihad/mark-krikorian

HankD

 

Having thought about this C4K I think you are correct in asking. This question needs to be debated, answered and clarified via legislation.

Does an American citizen prima facie loose/renounce his/her citizenship and constitutional rights when he sides with an enemy devoted to the destruction of America along with the history of the murder of Americans. Can he/she be executed on site along with his/her fellow combatants.

Obviously he/she can be legally killed during the very act of killing or attempting to kill Americans with no questions asked.

Does therefore the act of an American citizen strategizing and planning to do so as an agent of that enemy constitute an act of war so egregious as to demand his/her termination without due process as any other "enemy combatant" having therefore on a prima facie basis "renounced" his/her citizenship.

I believe it does in effect define a renounciation of that citizenship.

HankD

 

Just as freedom of speech does not mean we can willy-nilly yell "FIRE" in a building, the 5th Amendment has mitigating prohibitions such as "imminent" or "public" danger and/or individual acts of war.

Here is a short review of the debate of those situations:

Abstract:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cutive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_print.html

HankD

 

The traitor that makes war on his native country decides his own fate. They should all be hunted down like the vermin they are.

 

Presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens

A 1981 Executive Order signed by Ronald Reagan provides: ”No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Before the Geneva Conventions were first enacted, Abraham Lincoln — in the middle of the Civil War — directed Francis Lieber to articulate rules of conduct for war, and those were then incorporated into General Order 100, signed by Lincoln in April, 1863. Here is part of what it provided, in Section IX, entitled “Assassinations”:

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.
​

Can anyone remotely reconcile that righteous proclamation with what the Obama administration is doing? And more generally, what legal basis exists for the President to unilaterally compile hit lists of American citizens he wants to be killed?

What’s most striking of all is that it was recently revealed that, in Afghanistan, the U.S. had compiled a “hit list” of Afghan citizens it suspects of being drug traffickers or somehow associated with the Taliban, in order to target them for assassination. When that hit list was revealed, Afghan officials “fiercely” objected on the ground that it violates due process and undermines the rule of law to murder people without trials:

< snip >

So we’re in Afghanistan to teach them about democracy, the rule of law, and basic precepts of Western justice. Meanwhile, Afghan officials vehemently object to the lawless, due-process-free assassination “hit list” of their citizens based on the unchecked say-so of the U.S. Government, and have to lecture us on the rule of law and Constitutional constraints. By stark contrast, our own Government, our media and our citizenry appear to find nothing wrong whatsoever with lawless assassinations aimed at our own citizens.

Continue . . .

I find it interesting that some here who argue that Obama has a right to assassinate American citizens on his say so alone are also some of the same people who have argued in the past that Obama has lied so many times about so many things that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I remind those people once again that you and I have already been accused of being terrorist suspects by this administration. What makes you think you aren't on a "hit list" too?

Because you aren't a terrorist? I guess it's your word against Obama's then isn't it?

 

As far as I'm concerned, it's legal.

 

1. It shows they are not the Constitutionalists they claim they are.

2.It makes their claim of being conservatives suspect.


3. It muddies their claims about why they do not like Obama.

4. It shows more of a blood lust than an interest in law and order.

I could be much more graphic, but I best not do so.

 

Well, for the record I am both conservative and in agreement that we needed to give him due process. We do not order an assasination of our own citizens. The exception would be by rightful approval by congress, which is also seen as a form of due process. Also, I am the conservative that felt AZ's law on illegals could violate citizen's due process rights. Due process to me, is an important Constitutional issue. Yet, it appears you can't trust Republicans (Bush) or Democrats (Obama) to uphold the law.

So, don't lump me in with other "conservatives." I just ain't one of them

 

I congratulate you are your stance. You are being consistent and that is far too often seldom seen, at least on this BB.

My list was not aimed at all conservatives, just those who are inconsistent.

It is a slippery slope:

First no due process for those considered terrorists.
Who is second, third, fourth to be added to the group undeserving of due process?

 

Actually, I call the other side liberals. My view has historically been called conservative.

 

Yes if they are engaged in a war against the US as they are the enemy and have no rights to due process.