"Disagreeing has never been so much fun!"
Let Presidents Assassinate Americans
I Demand Due Process. Right to Trial.
I can’t believe we’re even discussing this. Should the executive branch have the power to assassinate American citizens they deem dangerous to the interest of the United States? Murder them without a trial, without due process.
Side A fans: (0)
Neutral Fans: (1)
View
Side B Comment
The Boss - 9/26/10 @ 9:25 AM:
I read this this morning:
(This is pertaining to a lawsuit filed against the US government on al-Awlaki's behalf.)
"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. "In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check."
"The lawsuit would necessarily and improperly inject the courts into decisions of the president and his advisers about how to protect the American people from the threat of armed attacks, including imminent threats, posed by a foreign organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of necessary and appropriate force, said the Justice Department filing."
(He is a very bad guy. Here's some of what he's said)
"Our unsettled account with America includes, at the very least, one million women and children. I'm not even talking about the men," Clapper's declaration quotes al-Awlaki as saying.
I'd love to see this guy die for the actions and comments hes committed but that is not upto the President to decide. When American citizens lose their legal protections where does it end. Whether you trust this president or not, chances are there will be a future president who you wouldn't want with this kind of secretive authority over issuing kill orders on American citizens. We may all agree that this guy deserves to die but what if the next American doesn't? What if the government decides to fabricate reasons to kill an American? I stand by the title of this rivalry; the only change I could have made is the replacement of "Obama" with "Presidents" as that would be less directed at one president and more so on all presidents.
Note: I updated the title to Presidents instead of Obama.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/25/white-house-seeks-dismiss-suit-filed-radical-cleric/?test=latestnews
(This is pertaining to a lawsuit filed against the US government on al-Awlaki's behalf.)
"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. "In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check."
"The lawsuit would necessarily and improperly inject the courts into decisions of the president and his advisers about how to protect the American people from the threat of armed attacks, including imminent threats, posed by a foreign organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of necessary and appropriate force, said the Justice Department filing."
(He is a very bad guy. Here's some of what he's said)
"Our unsettled account with America includes, at the very least, one million women and children. I'm not even talking about the men," Clapper's declaration quotes al-Awlaki as saying.
I'd love to see this guy die for the actions and comments hes committed but that is not upto the President to decide. When American citizens lose their legal protections where does it end. Whether you trust this president or not, chances are there will be a future president who you wouldn't want with this kind of secretive authority over issuing kill orders on American citizens. We may all agree that this guy deserves to die but what if the next American doesn't? What if the government decides to fabricate reasons to kill an American? I stand by the title of this rivalry; the only change I could have made is the replacement of "Obama" with "Presidents" as that would be less directed at one president and more so on all presidents.
Note: I updated the title to Presidents instead of Obama.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/25/white-house-seeks-dismiss-suit-filed-radical-cleric/?test=latestnews
Side B Comment
mama kaz - 7/23/10 @ 12:28 PM:
This isn't the only way they can get rid of people in this country. Just wait until Obama care starts! Some idiot sitting in an office will decide who lives and dies. Welcome to the Socialist Republic of America.
Side B Comment
cutie122403 - 7/22/10 @ 10:21 PM:
Wow, I am speechless but of course nothing should surprise me anymore. I had not heard about this until just now.
Side B Comment
Jeff - 7/21/10 @ 8:38 PM:
You know...I don't even know what to say about this country we live in any more I just don't know.
Side B Comment
Olivia Newton - 7/21/10 @ 8:15 PM:
Well, we have it from both a Republican and Democratic president. If they're a suspected terrorist, even without a trial, kill them! Can you imagine the various scenarios taking place with this presidential approval? The word 'dictator' comes to mind!
The Boss - 7/21/10 @ 8:32 PM:
Ally | Side B
The more I learn the more disgusted I become at how much power the executive branch has accrued over the last 10 years under Bush and Obama. Is there really any question as to why the Tea Party has grown to be so large?
Side B Comment
The Boss - 7/20/10 @ 3:54 PM:
I know what you're thinking; I'm nuts and this is a farce. Believe it or not It's not a joke. Read the following article before chalking this off as a conspiracy theory. Salon.com Article: Glenn Greenwald
Here's a quote from the Washington Post:
"After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.
The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy." January 2010.Washington Post: Dana Priest
Consider this question (Boston Globe Reporter Charlie Savage) and response from then candidate Barack Obama.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.Boston Globe: Charlie Savage
Here's a quote from the Washington Post:
"After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.
The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy." January 2010.Washington Post: Dana Priest
Consider this question (Boston Globe Reporter Charlie Savage) and response from then candidate Barack Obama.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.Boston Globe: Charlie Savage
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Dennis Plucinik - 7/24/10 @ 6:20 PM:
I'm disappointed that you would post such a rivalry.
Of course nobody is going to vote that "the President should be allowed to assassinate Americans" but just because they don't vote for that side doesn't mean they automatically agree that the President is in fact assassinating Americans.
This post is pure sensationalism, terribly leading and irresponsible. If you try to call out CNN for being biased from one side of your mouth, and make a post like this out of the other, you've already lost credibility with people intelligent enough to make a valuable contribution to this site.
Of course nobody is going to vote that "the President should be allowed to assassinate Americans" but just because they don't vote for that side doesn't mean they automatically agree that the President is in fact assassinating Americans.
This post is pure sensationalism, terribly leading and irresponsible. If you try to call out CNN for being biased from one side of your mouth, and make a post like this out of the other, you've already lost credibility with people intelligent enough to make a valuable contribution to this site.
The Boss - 7/25/10 @ 7:13 AM:
Ally | Side B
Let me know when I have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to look at all the sources provided before attacking a person for starting a legitimate discussion.
See the comment on CNN biased for further information.
You'll notice there isn't a single source from Fox. This news item is something the left sided media has focused on which is who I've quoted and sourced.
The individual in question is suspected to be involved with terrorist groups but is that enough for you to be okay with giving the kill order? Remember, even if you like Obama he won't be president forever. More than likely it will be a president you don't like very much.
See the comment on CNN biased for further information.
You'll notice there isn't a single source from Fox. This news item is something the left sided media has focused on which is who I've quoted and sourced.
The individual in question is suspected to be involved with terrorist groups but is that enough for you to be okay with giving the kill order? Remember, even if you like Obama he won't be president forever. More than likely it will be a president you don't like very much.
The Boss - 7/25/10 @ 7:21 AM:
Ally | Side B
And for the record I'm very confident that there are people who would have no problem with the president (any president) authorizing the murder of an American citizen if the president informed them that they are involved with terrorism or plots against the US.
The problem with that way of thinking is that you put trust in the administration in question to be accurate with their intel and motive. (WMD's in Iraq) Does that ring a bell about intel and motive?
The problem with that way of thinking is that you put trust in the administration in question to be accurate with their intel and motive. (WMD's in Iraq) Does that ring a bell about intel and motive?
The Boss - 7/25/10 @ 8:20 PM:
Ally | Side B
Response to the first sentence of the second paragraph of your first reply.
Dennis Plucinik - 7/25/10 @ 8:59 PM:
The reason I asked is because the point of my statement was basically this part "just because they don't vote for that side doesn't mean they automatically agree that the President is in fact assassinating Americans."
Which is why I said the rivalry is leading. You don't offer a real option other than to agree with your basic statement - that Obama is assassinating Americans - which is a sensationalist statement.
Which is why I said the rivalry is leading. You don't offer a real option other than to agree with your basic statement - that Obama is assassinating Americans - which is a sensationalist statement.
The Boss - 9/30/11 @ 7:35 PM:
Ally | Side B
@Dennis Plucinik: FYI, assassination completed.
Also, neutral side now exists so your initial problem with the rivalry has been resolved. So feel free to change sides.
Also, neutral side now exists so your initial problem with the rivalry has been resolved. So feel free to change sides.
