Should American citizens be executed by Presidential decree without trial?

You said "any American citizen". That's not really what you meant nor is that what is really going on here.

Cops have the right to shoot someone threatening the life of another individual, why can't the CIA target a guy in Yemen plotting to blow up a building in New York?

I don't see why people of authority charged with protecting the public shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves or others with lethal force.

I have a problem with it.

In the past, law enforcement has often been warned that fugitives were armed and dangerous and allowed to use lethal force in apprehending them. Iif the suspect has been offered a chance to surrender /and/ is using lethal force to defend himself, then law enforcement has the right to use lethal force to apprehend him.

The real problem here is the drone. The fugitive has pretty much has no opportunity to negotiate with or surrender to a drone firing a hellfire missile at him from 8000 meters (2 miles) away. There is basically no due process in this procedure. It is judge/jury/executioner by proxy.

NO!!!

we should all be executed for allowing bush to be elected. everyone turn themselves in now!

WTH? This is WAR people, the man is a traitor to his country and traitors are the lowest of the low. If you get a shot you take it. The life you save may be yours or your family.

I don't see what the problem is. If one is plotting an attack on this Country then it is considered Treason and subject to death under our laws. As far as I am concerned, one should lose all their American rights if they are hiding in the hills in the desert somewhere. Blast the batturd to kingdom come. :angry:

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.
​

However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

You said "any American citizen". That's not really what you meant nor is that what is really going on here.

Right. Not yet. Right now, it means a muslim american in a foreign land who engages in Anti-American speech.

WTH? This is WAR people, the man is a traitor to his country and traitors are the lowest of the low. If you get a shot you take it. The life you save may be yours or your family.

Oh you mean "the war on terror"? Because this guy is not in Iraq. He is not in Afghanistan or even Pakistan. He is allegedly a member of Al Qaeda- he denies this. He's probably lying, but it seems that's what court is for.

So far as I can tell he has not taken up arms against his nation. John Walker Lindh did. He is serving 20 years in prison. Not even he was executed without trial. I don't doubt this guy hates America and speaks ill of it. But that isn't a crime worthy of execution.

As far as I can tell, al-Awlaki has exchanged emails with the Fort Hood nutjob who also attended some of his sermons. Three 9-11 hijackers also attended some of his sermons. There were also contacts between al-Awlaki and the underpants bomber, who claimed that the former trained him. His offenses- correct me if I'm wrong- seem to be speech and perhaps conspiracy.

What you and probably most Americans are saying is "my government (whom incidentally I personally don't trust to deliver the mail) tells me someone is a terrorist because of unpopular speech, and even though he is an American citizen and has constitutional rights to said speech and due process, he should be killed."

I think this guy is a bad person living in a religious fantasy
world and if he is guilty of conspiring against his country, he should be brought to trial. If he takes up arms against his countrymen then by all means shoot and kill him. But so far as I can see, he has not killed anyone. He has committed unpopular speech and is guilty by his associations. Fine. Haul him to court.

The problem with this whole scenario should be obvious. Right now our government is targeting a muslim anti-American overseas. No one gives a hoot about his rights.

But what about when a white guy from Alabama joins a militia, shoots guns (legally) and dresses up in camo on weekends, then attends some Tea Party Rallies? Then when the government is wiretapping his calls without a warrant (as is their right in modern America) they hear him say some pretty anti-government stuff. Then he attends some meeting with other like minded individuals, where he makes some very vitriolic statements about Barack Obama that some would label "inciting violence" and wouldn't you know it, one of them goes nuts a month later and flies a plane into a government building...

Is this guy a criminal? If so, does he get a trial? Of course, right now, this guy is probably safe. But what about in ten years? We have authorized a heavy surveillance state and have set the precedent that executing American citizens based on speech and alleged conspiracy without due process is the right of a president.

Obama the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is authorizing the unprecedented execution of American citizens without due process by unmanned drones. Interesting times.

I don't see what the problem is. If one is plotting an attack on this Country then it is considered Treason and subject to death under our laws. As far as I am concerned, one should lose all their American rights if they are hiding in the hills in the desert somewhere. Blast the batturd to kingdom come. :angry:

Right. That's the key word. IF. That's what a trial is for. Or should we just execute anyone on sight who is accused of a capital offense?

Right. That's the key word. IF. That's what a trial is for. Or should we just execute anyone on sight who is accused of a capital offense?

I'd like to believe that Obama, prior to making this decision, knew the answer to that question?

Did Charles Manson kill Sharon Tate? No. But, his speak certainly was influential. Did Osama bin Laden fly the planes on 9.11.01? No. but, his teachings against America certainly had an influence on those who became to hate us so much.

I believe in fair trial. So, let's wait until this guy does something and then bring him to trial. OR, IF Treason can be proved, then bring him to trial. Right?

I have a problem with publicly declaring that an American citizen is to be executed w/o a trial, but I am trying to square that with my other feelings, as I have no problem with it in reality/practice, just on paper/legally.

I have no problem with an American citizen being declared "wanted dead or alive".

I have no problem with executing criminals.

I have no problem with sending a drone or smart bomb to a known location of a meeting of terrorists.

I have no problem with unleashing the full force and power of the US military and making terrorism against the United States such an unpleasant thing that it becomes a moot point.

I know that realistically we decide to kill people all the time and don't train snipers and build bombs to apprehend people.

And I think there are a lot of people that this world really is better off without.

I am sure that this is legal and has been thoroughly researched, but that doesn't mean I like it.

WTH? This is WAR people, the man is a traitor to his country and traitors are the lowest of the low. If you get a shot you take it. The life you save may be yours or your family.

While I don't disagree with your comment (shocking), I have a question.

This is War against terrorism. I agree.

IMO if someone plots to overthrow the government or threatens harm to an elected official, then that is a terroristic act against the United States. Shouldn't they fall under your statement?

Shouldn't the whacko militia that plot (talk) against us and the folks calling and threatening elected officials be held to the same standards as this traitor?

Cops have the right to shoot someone threatening the life of another individual, why can't the CIA target a guy in Yemen plotting to blow up a building in New York?

I don't see why people of authority charged with protecting the public shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves or others with lethal force.

Cops have the right if there is a threat of imminent death. Stating that you are going to kill someone does not give a cop the right to shoot you on the spot.

I'm with FBB on this one, there's a big difference between a cop dealing with a suspect and a piece of electronics 2 miles away from the suspect. The key word being suspect.

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, his views would be deemed as being at one with terrorists.

"What you and probably most Americans are saying is "my government (whom incidentally I personally don't trust to deliver the mail) tells me someone is a terrorist because of unpopular speech, and even though he is an American citizen and has constitutional rights to said speech and due process, he should be killed."


Fishfood, let me get this straight, you do not trust the government to deliver the mail or identify terrorists but DO trust them to properly deliver quality healthcare. HHHMMMMMMMM.

While I don't disagree with your comment (shocking), I have a question.

This is War against terrorism. I agree.

IMO if someone plots to overthrow the government or threatens harm to an elected official, then that is a terroristic act against the United States. Shouldn't they fall under your statement?

Shouldn't the whacko militia that plot (talk) against us and the folks calling and threatening elected officials be held to the same standards as this traitor?

If they do the crime, do the time. I do not know anyone who wishes any harm to anyone except to vote them out of office. So unless you count forcing a career change "threatening" elected officials, the standard doesn't apply.

If they do the crime, do the time. I do not know anyone who wishes any harm to anyone except to vote them out of office. So unless you count forcing a career change "threatening" elected officials, the standard doesn't apply.

Two points:

1. The militia members that were arrested were plotting to start a war with the U.S. by murdering law enforcement officers.

2. There have been physical threats against duly elected officials on both sides of the isle recently, not just statements to work on voting them out of office.

IMO, both of these points constitute an act of terrorism and threat to America.

Again, if you are comfortable with the President's decree to kill or capture an American/Islamic threat are you also comfortable with him decreeing the same for people associated with points 1&2?

Two points:

1. The militia members that were arrested were plotting to start a war with the U.S. by murdering law enforcement officers.

2. There have been physical threats against duly elected officials on both sides of the isle recently, not just statements to work on voting them out of office.

IMO, both of these points constitute an act of terrorism and threat to America.

Again, if you are comfortable with the President's decree to kill or capture an American/Islamic threat are you also comfortable with him decreeing the same for people associated with points 1&2?

I've highlighted the key phrase in this post. They were arrested, not taken out by an RPV firing a missile. Now, had they reacted violently to the arrest, then the LEOs would have been fully justified in using deadly force. As it went down, that wasn't necessary.

"What you and probably most Americans are saying is "my government (whom incidentally I personally don't trust to deliver the mail) tells me someone is a terrorist because of unpopular speech, and even though he is an American citizen and has constitutional rights to said speech and due process, he should be killed."


Fishfood, let me get this straight, you do not trust the government to deliver the mail or identify terrorists but DO trust them to properly deliver quality healthcare. HHHMMMMMMMM.

Boy I knew this was coming. I never said anything about wanting the government to DELIVER "quality" health care. I think our definitions of what is quality should be a little clearer too.

I do trust the government to deliver the mail. Providing services to taxpayers is not a big problem to me. There is no malice in delivering a letter or providing health care to veterans or the elderly.

Executing citizens without due process is quite a different animal. No, I don't trust the government to be judge jury and executioner of an American citizen without due process. If you look at Arkiehawg's examples it's easy to see why.

Let's just take your argument here though and place these two cases side by side-
A) government provides me with health care
B) government convicts and kills me with no trial

You pick which one is the lesser evil.

I've highlighted the key phrase in this post. They were arrested, not taken out by an RPV firing a missile. Now, had they reacted violently to the arrest, then the LEOs would have been fully justified in using deadly force. As it went down, that wasn't necessary.

Exactly.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

"Politics, like religion, holds up the torches of martyrdom to the reformers of error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Ogilvie, 1811. ME 13:68