Obama Administration Says It Can Kill Americans on US Soil

[JB3]

At this point, I'm just gonna assume that T-Rexx is trolling. If you have committed no heinous crimes, what is there to fear?

Its a subversion of due process and a gross abuse of power. It doesn't matter if they're a terrorist; if they're a citizen they're still afforded the protections guaranteed by the constitution.

There are NO circumstances under which it is acceptable for this or any President to order the death of an American citizen that has not been tried in a court of law.

 

[Rolyo85]

Its a subversion of due process and a gross abuse of power. It doesn't matter if they're a terrorist; if they're a citizen they're still afforded the protections guaranteed by the constitution.

There are NO circumstances under which it is acceptable for this or any President to order the death of an American citizen that has not been tried in a court of law.

That is factually incorrect. Terrorist acts and their planning place you as an enemy of the country and immediate threat to it, and your citizenship means nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a subversion of due process and a gross abuse of power. It doesn't matter if they're a terrorist; if they're a citizen they're still afforded the protections guaranteed by the constitution.

There are NO circumstances under which it is acceptable for this or any President to order the death of an American citizen that has not been tried in a court of law.

That is factually incorrect. Terrorist acts and their planning place you as an enemy of the country and immediate threat to it, and your citizenship means nothing.

 

[JB3]

That is factually incorrect. Terrorist acts and their planning place you as an enemy of the country and immediate threat to it, and your citizenship means nothing.

- - - Updated - - -



That is factually incorrect. Terrorist acts and their planning place you as an enemy of the country and immediate threat to it, and your citizenship means nothing.

As a matter of fact, you are incorrect. The US court system has always held that American citizens, whether they're enemies of the state or not, are still protected by the constitution and guaranteed the legal protections it prescribes.

You are arguing Eric Holder's point of view, which is that they are not. This is a new idea, and one not supported by the constitution, the courts, or any legal scholar.

 

[Rolyo85]

As a matter of fact, you are incorrect. The US court system has always held that American citizens, whether they're enemies of the state or not, are still protected by the constitution and guaranteed the legal protections it prescribes.

You are arguing Eric Holder's point of view, which is that they are not. This is a new idea, and one not supported by the constitution, the courts, or any legal scholar.

So, if the pilot of one of the 9/11 planes was American, and the military had the plane on lock, they should have not shot it down because they hadn't put him on trial first?

 

[evanrick]

I don't see the justification for this. 9-11 was almost last century. No good can come from such a prescendent, we are shredding our liberty if Obama beleives this or is running scared from the security nazis in DC.

In the old days we had laws against blacks because they were black, now we have laws against Americans because they are American.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see the justification for this. 9-11 was almost last century. No good can come from such a prescendent, we are shredding our liberty if Obama beleives this or is running scared from the security nazis in DC.

In the old days we had laws against blacks because they were black, now we have laws against Americans because they are American.

 

[evanrick]

So, if the pilot of one of the 9/11 planes was American, and the military had the plane on lock, they should have not shot it down because they hadn't put him on trial first?

well that didnt happen. they were international terrorists. false equivalence/ hypothetical, sorry.

the men that do the most damage to American security are usually white men shooting minorities in this country and others, you cant necessarily trust them with more powers.

- - - Updated - - -

So, if the pilot of one of the 9/11 planes was American, and the military had the plane on lock, they should have not shot it down because they hadn't put him on trial first?

well that didnt happen. they were international terrorists. false equivalence/ hypothetical, sorry.

the men that do the most damage to American security are usually white men shooting minorities in this country and others, you cant necessarily trust them with more powers.

 

[tigerfan482]

As a matter of fact, you are incorrect. The US court system has always held that American citizens, whether they're enemies of the state or not, are still protected by the constitution and guaranteed the legal protections it prescribes.

You are arguing Eric Holder's point of view, which is that they are not. This is a new idea, and one not supported by the constitution, the courts, or any legal scholar.

That's not always the case. Lethal force is allowed to be used on citizens without due process if they pose an imminent threat to others. That is why the FBI was able to kill James Lee Dykes in Alabama before taking him to trial. That is why a police officer is able to shoot someone who pulls a gun and points it at them. And that is why if law enforcement was faced with a situation like knowing Timothy McVeigh was currently driving a van full of explosives to blow up a federal building, that they would be able to take whatever steps necessary to stop him without having to arrange a trial first.

Your rights as a citizen extend only so far as to not infringe on the rights of others. Once you venture into that territory, your rights are no longer valid, which is why your right to free speech doesn't guarantee you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater or the right to threaten to kill someone. Consequently, your right to habeas corpus does not serve as a shield to allow you to do whatever you want to others until you are put on trial and found guilty.

 

[maxpowr9]

^Exactly. It's one of those 'feel-good' progressive theories that everyone deserves the right to a trial but the application falls flat on its face when applied to reality. Again, these are very extraordinary circumstances and lethal force is used as a last resort.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I think as pointed out earlier in the thread, this is people freaking out over the Federal Government basically openly stating that they would operate the same way that any police would react in a situation of imminent threat. People who start shooting at cops are most ordinarily not tackled so that they can stand trial, and there's no massive outcry over the violation of their rights as citizens as a result.

 

[T-Rexx]

Holder has amended his previous statement about the drones.

He now says the administration would NOT use drones to kill Americans on American soil.

Dear Senator Paul,

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

Sincerely,

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

That is, of course, the correct answer.

There are times when I think the administration reads our threads on JUB, and takes its cues from us.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...rand-paul-gets-a-letter-from-eric-holder.html

 

[maxpowr9]

That is, of course, the correct answer.

There are times when I think the administration reads our threads on JUB, and takes its cues from us.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...rand-paul-gets-a-letter-from-eric-holder.html

A letter of assuage and nothing more.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just to make this more interesting...

some precedent, in two pair of words:

George Washington . . . Whiskey Rebellion.

 

[tigerfan482]

Holder has amended his previous statement about the drones.

He now says the administration would NOT use drones to kill Americans on American soil.




That is, of course, the correct answer.

There are times when I think the administration reads our threads on JUB, and takes its cues from us.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...rand-paul-gets-a-letter-from-eric-holder.html

And as the letter shows, he asked a specific question about drones and not a general question of lethal force, with drones being used as a possible example. Ask a straight question and get a straight answer.