• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.

Should American citizens be executed by Presidential decree without trial?

New posts
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.:bang:
 
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.:bang:

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.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top