Posted on 04/14/2014 4:22:52 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Patriot: Citizens can hide rationale for killing U.S. Judges.
Wonder how that would work...
Doesn’t it depend on who is issuing the hit? I don’t think that’s the same at all.
Agreed. One commentor talked about them being in ‘their homes’. BS. Americans fighting/planning for Al Qaeda or its affiliates outside of the US are fair game because terrorism is a state of war without all the niceties of a formal declaration of war.
If they are demonstratively our enemies, then we have every right to kill them wherever they are. If they bring their kiddies along for the show, tough shit. That’s why someone created the word “collateral damage”, just to fit situations like this.
Besides, taking you kids into a war zone is an act of “child abuse”, something that Moslem fanatics are good at.
Many moons ago, the US developed the legal concept of the “long arm” law/reach. It was designed to enable the government/law enforcement to go outside of American borders in order to get the bad guys.
Today it exists in partially modified form, i.e., using Interpol warrants and world War Crimes tribunals as authorities sanctioning this tactic (esp. for Yugoslavia war criminals).
Israel used it in kidnapping mass murderer Adolf Eichmann from Argentina so he could stand trial in Israel for WW2 genocide. Would you really have expected Argentina, the home of many Nazis/war criminals protected by the fascist family of the Perons and their successors, to hand over Eichmann or any other Nazi War Criminal? Don’t think so. They wouldn’t betray their friends and bribery donors.
I actually prefer the old WW2/post WW2 tactic some British commandos used on Nazi war criminals in Europe. Hunt them down and kill them. Two to the head and walk away.
Worked for them. Works for me.
This is ruling addresses a very specific scenario.
Obama administration can keep secret a memo spelling out the legal rationale for a 2011 drone attack
A memo. It addresses a MEMO. Please keep it in perspective.
BINGO. This is an ACT you can actually cite to for authority and precedence (if necessary).
It is pretty clear and specific. It doesn’t say take out the Mime in Paris. It says to get terrorists who are fighting against the U.S.
C’est le difference!
By the police maybe.
Non-combatants not engaged in combat are NOT “targets of opportunity” within our own borders.
All of America is not a war zone.
I said legal.
I have an idea! Let’s stop importing muslims and we won’t have to worry about their citizenship.
I would probably tend to agree with you if your definition if traitor was being used, and there was oversight.
But give captain 0 the authority to name who is combatant and the basis with no ability to hold him accountable is beyond creepy.
Remember, Holder claims that POTUS has the authority to kill US citizens in the US without due process.
Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144397/posts
Transparency is the enemy of The State!
http://imageshack.us/a/img62/1088/cv9t.jpg
You know, people like: returning veterans, libertarians, states rights proponents, and people who think abortion is morally wrong.
“the functional equivalent of a Declaration of War.”
My copy of the Constitution doesn’t say a word about “functional equivalents”. I’d suggest you return the one you have to whomever sold it to you, get your money back, and purchase a correct one.
L
Whole lot of judges needs a little re-edumacation or serious ass whoopings.
Please show me the constitutional mandate that allows US citizens to be assassinated because they are on foreign soil, but would not allow it on domestic soil.
(Nearly) unanimous Congressional Resolution: "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"
Notice the Resolution says "persons," not "non-citizens." This Resolution mirrors the congressional authorization to use force given Adams in 1798. A good many of the Founders being involved in its production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Further_to_Protect_the_Commerce_of_the_United_States
BTW, anytime Congress decides to it can rescind its authorization.
Please show me the constitutional requirement that military forces of the United States must inquire into the citizenship status of an active enemy of the Unites States before engaging him with deadly force.
Does it make sense to you that any active enemy who holds US citizenship and manages to make it to an area of the world where they cannot be reached using traditional law enforcement means should be untouchable?
In your opinion, if you as a citizen happen to be near a suspected terrorist, it's completely OK for you to be killed? What does it take to designate a foreign national as a terrorist? Could anyone be designated a terrorist? Couldn't then anyone be considered "collateral damage"?
Actually, the father was a naturalized citizen and an al Quaeda leader. He was the target of an intentional attack.
His 16 year old natural-born American citizen son was killed as collateral damage in a later attack aimed at another terrorist.
What does it take to be designated a terrorist? I suggest you read the congressional resolution authorizing use of force against anyone the President determines to be involved in the 9/11 attacks or planning similar attacks.
I am probably as disturbed as you by the potential for abuse in such power, but I am curious about what you would recommend as an alternative process for waging war against terrorists. Or should we just ignore them till they attack us, and only then hit back?
Collateral damage is a risk in any military operation. In WWII, at least in theory, we killed hundreds of thousands as collateral damage. Should we have never bombed Germany or Japan because such attacks inevitably involved the killing of thousands of perfectly innocent people?
And, yeah, I think people who hang out with terrorists should run increased risk of death. Don’t want to be blown up? Don’t hang around with terrorists.
I realize a lot of y’all are disturbed by the image of an American president authorizing targeted strikes on American citizens overseas. You feel it should be unconstitutional or illegal in some way.
The problem is that conservatives don’t believe in a Constitution that means what we think it should mean, we believe in one that says what it actually says. Which means quotation of the section that prohibits American military forces, at the direction of the Commander in Chief, authorized to do so by Congress, from attacking enemies if they happen to be US citizens.
I don’t know of any such provision. Feel free to post it, if you do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
