(no subject)

[thies.livejournal.com]

Using the constitution as toilet paper - again. The Obama administration authorized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki who holds US citizenship. There is some nefarious precedent being created by allowing the President to order the killing of American citizens, regardless of their alleged crimes, without granting them their 5th Amendment rights. Bush with his renditions, and the implications of the Patriot Act was bad enough, but ordering a US citizen to be assassinated as Obama now did takes it to a whole new level. I bet Stalin would be proud of Barry Soetoro. Anyone want to wager which other parts of the constitution will be considered void by Obama until he gets kicked out of the white house?

(source)

Comments

[thies.livejournal.com]

I don't think that'd be possible unless it is another civil war scenario where one/multiple states secede. Any group of civilians beyond a situation of that scope would be a criminal case and be about arrest instead of killing.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

I'm still wondering what explicit technical wording in the constitution prohibits military use of force against citizens while allowing it for non-citizens.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The definition of what a military is prohibits it.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Wasn't that what happened in Waco? Altho I guess it was the ATF, but still.
(serious question, because I confess to being a bit confused)

[thies.livejournal.com]

as far as I recall it wasn't a military operation and the intent was arrest until things spiraled a bit out of control. in the end they tried to save the children and koresch went all taliban and martyred himself and his followers.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

OK, (I did a little research, to refresh my mind) it turns out the actual siege was by the FBI, so technically it wasn't a military operation, altho pretty much run like one.

I think my confusion lies in the fact that it seems to me that if this guy is not local, but we deliver a warrant, if he doesn't give up peacefully what is the recourse? I mean if we were to offer him a fair trial and he refuses, he has declared himself an enemy combatant right? (of course, it appears he has declared himself so any way, so it's a moot point) Enemy combatants can be taken out, problem solved. Or am I being too simplistic?

Think about it like this, even if the dude isn't shooting a gun, he is still a combatant, as generals rarely shoot guns, but in war one side does try to take out generals. Now while this isn't a war between countries, but more ideologies, and the combatants come from many different countries, including the U.S. it just seems to me that he doesn't rate a civil trial.

[thies.livejournal.com]

He is also still a citizen. I don't think the idea is to shoot criminals just because they don't think attending a trial and going to jail is such an awesome idea, they are arrested. And possibly shot if they forcefully resist such an attempt.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Which, given all the circumstances, is where I come down on this. Altho it does bother me a little.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Noncompliant armed criminals are arrested every day.

Every day.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

And sometimes they are shot, or shoot cops. But I guess I see your point.