|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:06 pm Post subject: 2 US citizens assassinated by the CIA in Yemen |
 |
|
Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike
Does anyone care that U.S. Constitution explicitly states that American traitors are to be given a fair trial and NOT be assassinated? Most of the comments on the news websites basically amount to no. Is this the new norm for the United States? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can you please cite where the US Constitution states this.
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The 5th Amendment wrote: |
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. |
So, unless he is in the land or naval forces or in the Militia in a time of war, no person [citizen] will be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
On treason:
| Article 3, Section 3 wrote: |
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. |
I'm sure you could have charged al-Awlaki with something other than treason, but the specifics happen to be there if that's the choice. Either way you look at it, American citizens have the right to a trial BEFORE their execution... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dude, the guy knew what he was getting into...He's not some poor naive dude dragged down by the police state.
He's a modern terrorist actor.
All bets are off when you leave U.S. soil and take up arms.
Of course they can just get around this by saying the people he was with were the intended targets and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If that man was so worried about being treated fairly in war, he should put on a uniform and whatnot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
He's a modern terrorist actor.
All bets are off when you leave U.S. soil and take up arms. |
Since there will be no trial, the public may never get to see what evidence there actually was against him. We just have to take the President's word for it, don't we? And does this mean that the U.S. government gets to decide when Constitutional rights no longer apply to a given citizen? If he was living in New Hampshire, could they just walk into his home and shoot him? So, he was a "modern terrorist actor". I'm sure that the authors of the Constitution were fully aware of the death and destruction that could be wrought by American traitors. And yet, the rights of ALL American citizens were still enshrined in the ultimate law of the land.
For those who think the killing of these American citizens were all well and good, where exactly is the line drawn? Can it be done on U.S. soil? Does the state have to provide ANY evidence against you after it kills you? Is it sufficient to give "aid and comfort to the enemy" (a traitor by definition) to be labeled a terrorist and executed without trial?
I'm not saying we're on a slippery slope, I'm saying we've jumped over the Constitutional fence and we're falling into a potentially bottomless pit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikejelai
Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| so much for the US following the rule of law (as we always claim to do....); can't expect other countries to follow it now, either, I guess................ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| We just have to take the President's word for it, don't we? |
We already do that with 50,000 other things....
| Quote: |
| I'm sure that the authors of the Constitution were fully aware of the death and destruction that could be wrought by American traitors. And yet, the rights of ALL American citizens were still enshrined in the ultimate law of the land. |
The founding fathers would have declared him a heathen moor and decided that he had no rights a white man was bound to respect.
| Quote: |
| For those who think the killing of these American citizens were all well and good, where exactly is the line drawn? Can it be done on U.S. soil? Does the state have to provide ANY evidence against you after it kills you? Is it sufficient to give "aid and comfort to the enemy" (a traitor by definition) to be labeled a terrorist and executed without trial? |
How about not dying by not becoming a terrorist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I smiled when I heard they were killed and won't lose a bit of sleep that those two treasonous rat bastards got their just due, comm is right. It was against the law to knowingly kill them. I'd rather they were killed 'unknowingly' and 'incidentally' wink-wink...hehehe..but it is a violation of their constitutional rights. Problem is this sort of precedence ultimately gets misused for all manor of killings arbitrarily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
How about not dying by not becoming a terrorist? |
And the new standard is that you don't have to be convicted of terrorism. The President says you're a terrorist and puts you on a Kill On Sight list, and then you die. He doesn't have to get an indictment or a warrant from a judge and he doesn't have to have a jury determine your guilt. You have no right to defend yourself or face your accusers, you have no right to appeal. There's no "beyond reasonable doubt", there's no "innocent until proven guilty".
One man says you are a terrorist and then the government of the United States kills you. This is a power no man has had over Americans since King George III. And I'm confused by the fact that millions of Americans think that's ok. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Comm please read what Lincoln did during the civil war. There is precedent for this. The "victim" in his own words called for the death of U.s. citizens.
Glad this guy is dead! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
Comm please read what Lincoln did during the civil war. There is precedent for this. The "victim" in his own words called for the death of U.s. citizens.
Glad this guy is dead! |
Are you referring to the suspension of Habeas Corpus? Article 1, Section 9 allows for that: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The Constitutional question for Lincoln was whether the President or the Congress had the authority to invoke it. Of course, THAT is only Habeas Corpus, and THAT is only in cases of Rebellion or Invasion... You'd probably have a tough time proving that summary execution is either less serious than H.C. or that we're experiencing a "Rebellion or Invasion".
If you're referring to the right of a government to kill rebellious citizens on a battlefield, then you and I are agreed. But what about away from a battlefield? What about Americans in their car, unarmed, driving down the street?
Suspending Habeas Corpus is provided for in the Constitution. Executing American citizens without trial is NOT in the Constitution. In fact, even during the Civil War, even when the White House was burned to the ground by the British in 1814, even as Americans were interned due to their Japanese ancestry in 1942... no man or woman had the authority to kill an American citizen without trial or recourse.
But getting back to Al Awlaki, I'm glad he's dead too. And as Sirius pointed out above, it wouldn't have been AS bad if the President had said that they'd killed a Yemeni Al Qaida operative and 2 American citizens "happened" to be in the car. But instead we've decided that the American President has the authority (or at least the consent of the majority) to kill any American he so chooses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tower of Babel
Joined: 29 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My summary of the linked article:
"Yay, we killed Goldstein!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tower of Babel
Joined: 29 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Double post
Last edited by Tower of Babel on Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This was the assassination of an American citizen.
It is not okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I for one take the target at his word when he declares the US his enemy and wants nothing to do with him. He seems to have pretty much renounced his citizenship.
You don't want to be Hellfire missiled, don't go join the terrorist bandwagon. Pretty simple to me.
Does this change anything? For those of us who believe in the big evil police military-industrial complex state, they already could whack anyone for whatever reason they saw fit. Nothing has changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
