Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

[victoreia]

I am interested in why you are sure? Is that personal experience? Based on thorough investigation on the processes and people in place? Or faith that people in powerful positions always show good judgement?

 
While I have only skimmed the article (and that only briefly), it reminds me of the McCarthy Era. And if I remember anything from my high school history class, didn't the accusations against suspected Communists become increasingly arbitrary, and based more on political ambitions than actual facts and evidence?

(I freely admit that high school class was quite a while ago, and we may not have covered that period of time as well as we should have.)

[gwynwas]

The word treason comes to mind.  I voted for Obama, I consider myself leftist, but for f sake ppl.  Sometimes the planet is just better off without another wacked individual using some bs religion to rationalize jihad.  I for one applaud the Obama administration for having the backbone to fight.

Just my humble opinion.

[gwynwas]

In my view the slippery slope argument is not ever a real argument.  Targetting Awlaki does not necessarily mean innocent Americans are going to be blacklisted as under McCarthyism any more than smoking marijuana leading to heroin.

[LyricFox]

In my view the slippery slope argument is not ever a real argument.  Targetting Awlaki does not necessarily mean innocent Americans are going to be blacklisted as under McCarthyism any more than smoking marijuana leading to heroin.

 
Read what you wrote. "does not necessarily mean"..you're pretty cavalier there with other people's rights. From what I can see, this means it might or maybe it might not. You never know; it could...depends on if the full moon falls on the third Wednesday of the month. Then again, it might.

The other part of it it, "In my view the slippery slope argument..." You know what they say about opinions...

[Melamphoros]

The word treason comes to mind.  I voted for Obama, I consider myself leftist, but for f sake ppl.  Sometimes the planet is just better off without another wacked individual using some bs religion to rationalize jihad.  I for one applaud the Obama administration for having the backbone to fight.

Just my humble opinion.

 

A Reminder:

gwynwas, Just a quick note:  Please remember to quote, even if you're just  replying to the first message in the thread.  It makes the discussion  easier to follow, and it's required by  our  rules. This isn't a formal warning, just a reminder.  No  reply is necessary, but if you have questions or need clarification,  please feel free to contact a member of staff privately. Thanks! Melamphoros, TC Board Staff

[Marilyn/Absentminded]

 
gwynwas,

Please remember to quote the post you are responding to, as is required by our rules.

Thank you,
Marilyn, TC staff

[gwynwas]

Read what you wrote. "does not necessarily mean"..you're pretty cavalier there with other people's rights. From what I can see, this means it might or maybe it might not. You never know; it could...depends on if the full moon falls on the third Wednesday of the month. Then again, it might.

The other part of it it, "In my view the slippery slope argument..." You know what they say about opinions...

1. We are on the same page . . . "Maybe" means that just because one step is taken does not mean twenty will be taken.

2. I am being cavalier with the rights of one man.  A Mr. Awlaki who betrayed us all and is inciting war against us.  60 years ago there would be no controversy.  He is committing treason.  He would have been given a death sentence without question.  He is not some helpless victim.  He is waging war.  Death is a very likely outcome for such a man.  Why protect him?

3. Opinions are the fuel that makes internet forums run.  I am explicitly expressing opinions.  Those who believe the assassinations of the likes of bin Laden or Awlaki will lead to a police state in the US are also expressing an opinion.  It is all opinion.

[LyricFox]

1. We are on the same page . . . "Maybe" means that just because one step is taken does not mean twenty will be taken.

No. We are not on the same page. You believe it doesn't mean one thing. I believe it's possible. No where near the same.

2. I am being cavalier with the rights of one man.

That's pretty much the point. You are being cavalier. About what are inalienable rights. So while you can be cavalier about his rights, someone else can be just as cavalier about yours. That's why there is a constitution. There are certain rights that should not be abridged without the appropriate steps taken.

Appointing a "panel" to be judge, jury and executioner is NOT one of those steps.

A Mr. Awlaki who betrayed us all and is inciting war against us.  60 years ago there would be no controversy.  He is committing treason.  He would have been given a death sentence without question.

Would you care to cite your sources. Be very specific here because I'm talking about a person who has been tried and convicted of treason; I'm not talking about the term that gets tossed about today without any grounding in what it actually means (hint: the US Constitution is the final arbiter here, not Bill O'Reilly or some internet pundit on Red State or other right leaning blog).

 He is not some helpless victim.  

I never said he was. Don't put words in my mouth.

He is waging war.  Death is a very likely outcome for such a man.  Why protect him?

Because he is/was an American citizen. I fully believe he would have been found guilty in a trial, BUT that trial needed to be held. What you believe or what I believe isn't the guide here.

3. Opinions are the fuel that makes internet forums run.  I am explicitly expressing opinions.  Those who believe the assassinations of the likes of bin Laden or Awlaki will lead to a police state in the US are also expressing an opinion.  It is all opinion.

Actually, opinions are what make CERTAIN internet forums run. This isn't one of them. Go read the rules. They're pretty specific about opinions and citations and the like.

[gwynwas]

No. We are not on the same page. You believe it doesn't mean one thing. I believe it's possible. No where near the same.

That is a misrepresentation.   If you believe it is possible but not certain then we are in agreement.

[gwynwas]

No. We are not on the same page. You believe it doesn't mean one thing. I believe it's possible. No where near the same.



That's pretty much the point. You are being cavalier. About what are inalienable rights. So while you can be cavalier about his rights, someone else can be just as cavalier about yours. That's why there is a constitution. There are certain rights that should not be abridged without the appropriate steps taken.

Appointing a "panel" to be judge, jury and executioner is NOT one of those steps.



Would you care to cite your sources. Be very specific here because I'm talking about a person who has been tried and convicted of treason; I'm not talking about the term that gets tossed about today without any grounding in what it actually means (hint: the US Constitution is the final arbiter here, not Bill O'Reilly or some internet pundit on Red State or other right leaning blog).



I never said he was. Don't put words in my mouth.



Because he is/was an American citizen. I fully believe he would have been found guilty in a trial, BUT that trial needed to be held. What you believe or what I believe isn't the guide here.



Actually, opinions are what make CERTAIN internet forums run. This isn't one of them. Go read the rules. They're pretty specific about opinions and citations and the like.

Inalienable rights do not give any man impunity to wage war on his own country.  You raise a gun toward your fellows and you are libel to be shot in the face.

You are welcome to start citing souces,but I see you have cited none at all.

You claim that expressing opinions is frowned on by forum rules but all you do is express your own opinions.  Why is that?

[Inca]

60 years ago there would be no controversy.

 
You mean during the McCarthy witchhunt on communists? Ah, yes, there'd be no controversy. (There were quite a few people unfairly disadvataged of course, but who cares for them...)

[Inca]

You are welcome to start citing souces,but I see you have cited none at all.

 
Well, THE source seems to me:

    Bill of rights, Amendment V

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 offence 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.

• http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
  

[RandallS]

That is a misrepresentation.   If you believe it is possible but not certain then we are in agreement.

A Reminder:

Please do not tell people what they do or do not believe or declare that they are in agreement with you when they state that they are not. You may say something like "It looks like we might actually be in agreement because X", but do not state it as a "fact" so it looks like you are "correcting" their disagreement to agreement. You do not have the right to tell others whether or not they really agree with you when they say they do not.

[RandallS]

Inalienable rights do not give any man impunity to wage war on his own country.  You raise a gun toward your fellows and you are libel to be shot in the face.

Yes, if I catch you in the act of shooting someone, I can act to stop you -- using lethal force if necessary. However, if you are wanted for shooting someone in the past, I can't kill you because of that, you have to be arrested, tried, and found guilty before you can be punished. In fact if I shot and killed you instead of arresting you, I'd be guilty of the crime of homocide.

If this character had been killed in combat against the US or killed while being arrested because he resisted, that would be one thing. But some secret panel has no authority under the US Constitution to authorize the killing of US citizens because they believe them guilty of treason. Doing so makes the US government look no better than they terrorists they are fighting and is just as wrong as what the terrorists are doing.

To I mind that the guy is dead? Of course not, but I do mind the unconstitutional assumption of power by the US government -- power that they will likely use again citing this case as "precedent" to prove they actually have this power.  

You claim that expressing opinions is frowned on by forum rules but all you do is express your own opinions.  Why is that?

I think you misunderstood. Stating your opinion is fine. Claiming that attacks on your position are ignorable because opinions are what makes the Internet go around is not acceptable. It basically says "I'm trolling".

[LyricFox]

Inalienable rights do not give any man impunity to wage war on his own country.  You raise a gun toward your fellows and you are libel to be shot in the face.

You are welcome to start citing souces,but I see you have cited none at all.

Sorry, but I'm not the one making the claim. It's not up to me to cite the sources for you. However, if you look down a couple of posts, you'll see Inca cited the correct Article of the US Constitution which, by the way, I did cite as the final arbiter in the defining "treason."

You claim that expressing opinions is frowned on by forum rules but all you do is express your own opinions.  Why is that?

Because you actually can't read? I dunno. What part of that post of mine stating the US Constitution is the final arbiter did you not understand. That is not opinion. That is fact.