Should American citizens be executed by Presidential decree without trial?

[futurebeachbum]

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.

 

[Kayak Fish]

"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.

 

[Kayak Fish]

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.

 

[Bob]

"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

 

[Bob]

"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

 

[Bob]

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