[paleoeco]

Originally Posted by deaconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you take up arms against your country, you're committing treason, which has historically been an executable offense in most countries. Furthermore, treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution, making me think our founding fathers found it to be a pretty big-fucking-deal. I agree. We're not talking about sedition here...these are people that actively seek to destroy the country they were born in. Fuck that. When you make a decision to harm your country in this way, you lose your rights as a citizen. Coming? As soon as the Patriot Act was signed it arrived. I just don't understand how law-abiding citizens think this situation of "U.S. citizens [being] legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida", is something they need to worry about, or feel has shit to do with a fascist police state. Furthermore, as a former soldier, it angers and frustrates me that you people seem to care more about equal rights for fucks like Anwar al-Awlaki than you do your own goddamn fighting force. When's the last time any of you made an angry post about how American soldiers are denied or receive substandard psychological care?

The old "why worry if you have nothing to hide?" argument.

The point is that this bypasses the basic right of a US citizen has to due process, namely to defense him/herself against charges by the Gov't in an open court.

Just so we're clear here, I care about as much "for fucks like Anwar al-Awlaki" as I do for ANY US citizen. Our citizenship ought to provide us the protections of the US Constitution - and that goes for ALL citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki may have very well been guilty of treason, but it was only asserted and never proven.

The point you seem to miss here is that just as he was assassinated without due process, a time may come when the Govt decides you have committed treason. In your haste to punish one now, you eliminate any opporunity you may have to defend yourself in the future.

A State ought never have the right to detain or kill its citizenry without due process and an opporunity for defense. This country was founded after a revolution against such a State. It's treasonous for an American to forget that.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by deaconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you take up arms against your country, you're committing treason, which has historically been an executable offense in most countries.

Treason was an "executable offense" in this country before these arguments were made. The difference these legal changes make are the power to indefinitely detain or execute someone on the sole basis of accusation, no proof required.

[larkin]

Lots of conflating of violations civil rights here. Each should be considered on their own merits.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where is everyone who objected to the Patriot Act? This makes the PA look like a change in dog catcher regulations.

The Patriot Act has many sections that are concerning and many that are patently unconstitutional:

- allows the executive branch to demand any personal or private records at will without a subpoena, or any kind of prima facie showing of terrorist involvement
- allows the executive branch the authority to conduct audio or visual surveillance without a subpoena
- allows the FBI to build a citizen database without either any oversight or reasonable suspicion requirements

Points one and two have since been deemed unconstitutional by federal courts, but that doesn't mean the government has stopped using them while they're under appeal.

Put simply: the Patriot Act made it legal for the executive branch to collect any data, private or public, on any citizen for any reason at all, without requiring any court oversight or reasonable suspicion. Bush passed it but Obama has upheld it. Objection to it should be a bipartisan issue.

Originally Posted by deaconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I just don't understand how law-abiding citizens think this situation of "U.S. citizens [being] legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida", is something they need to worry about, or feel has shit to do with a fascist police state. Furthermore, as a former soldier, it angers and frustrates me that you people seem to care more about equal rights for fucks like Anwar al-Awlaki than you do your own goddamn fighting force.

I agree that targeting anyone on the field of battle is the military's prerogative. What constitutes the field of battle, meanwhile, is a reasonable question, and one that should be subjected to judicial review.

Still, the Al-Awlaqi question (and the subject of this thread) is the least troublesome civil rights violation to be raised.

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	. Just so we're clear here, I care about as much "for fucks like Anwar al-Awlaki" as I do for ANY US citizen. Our citizenship ought to provide us the protections of the US Constitution - and that goes for ALL citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki may have very well been guilty of treason, but it was only asserted and never proven.

Legally speaking, he was tried in absentia by the Yemeni government, who gave the U.S. the authority to conduct the military operation. A more lawful operation than Osama Bin-Laden's execution, and few would oppose that, I imagine. Jurisdiction is the better delimiting factor than citizenship, in my opinion.

[deconspire]

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The old "why worry if you have nothing to hide?" argument.

No, that was just a comment, not an argument.

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A State ought never have the right to detain or kill its citizenry without due process and an opportunity for defense. This country was founded after a revolution against such a State. It's treasonous for an American to forget that.

I disagree when said "citizen" is actively conspiring and coordinating terrorist activity in a wartime environment. What we should remember is that the military does not answer to any entity in this country except for the President. That includes the courts and the constitution. What I'm trying to say is that military operations supersede our opinions on "fairness", right or wrong.

	The point you seem to miss here is that just as he was assassinated without due process, a time may come when the Govt decides you have committed treason.

If the CIA thinks that I'm such a dangerous terrorist that they need to come wipe me out in the dead of night....well, I'm probably a dangerous fucking terrorist then. 1 or 2 innocent people dying in order to knock out 100 legitimate threats is a fair trade off...even if I'm one of the innocents.

	In your haste to punish one now, you eliminate any opportunity you may have to defend yourself in the future.

I've punished a lot of them in the past so I'm admittedly biased on this statement. I'll have a more important person to defend myself to in the end, anyway.

	What constitutes the field of battle, meanwhile, is a reasonable question, and one that should be subjected to judicial review.

	Jurisdiction is the better delimiting factor than citizenship, in my opinion.

Absolutely.

[Sumwun]

	Originally Posted by deaconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the CIA thinks that I'm such a dangerous terrorist that they need to come wipe me out in the dead of night....well, I'm probably a dangerous fucking terrorist then.

Either that or an illegal organic farmer selling fucking milk. Milk. Not pipe bombs, not full auto weapons, not drugs. Milk...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by deaconspire
	1 or 2 innocent people dying in order to knock out 100 legitimate threats is a fair trade off...even if I'm one of the innocents.

People like you are frightening. Not because of what you do, but because of what you let happen. There were plenty like you in Germany during the 1920's. The government officials would be dancing like school girls if they could get everyone to think like you. Looks like they're making good progress.

I doubt there are even 100 hardcore terrorists in the entire fucking country. This law is intended to control the population with an iron fist into submission. The only result will be a police state. When a government authority can have you killed for a mere accusation, that's a problem. Careful who you flip off on the highway. If you piss off a senate worker, it might end up in your family being branded as "terrorists" and subsequently wiped out.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lots of conflating of violations civil rights here. Each should be considered on their own merits.

While this is true, the current legislation is far more troubling.

	I agree that targeting anyone on the field of battle is the military's prerogative. What constitutes the field of battle, meanwhile, is a reasonable question, and one that should be subjected to judicial review.

And you think the military is going to be subject to civil courts?

	Still, the Al-Awlaqi question (and the subject of this thread) is the least troublesome civil rights violation to be raised.

And the more difficult question of making war without being under a national banner.

	Legally speaking, he was tried in absentia by the Yemeni government, who gave the U.S. the authority to conduct the military operation. A more lawful operation than Osama Bin-Laden's execution, and few would oppose that, I imagine. Jurisdiction is the better delimiting factor than citizenship, in my opinion.

Al-Awlaqi was a US citizen, which is what was most troubling. Bin Laden's role as a combatant against the US was long established, and he had no citizenship issues.

Giving the military the power to kill US citizens anywhere it deems a battlefield exists is very troubling.

[paleoeco]

Originally Posted by deaconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I disagree when said "citizen" is actively conspiring and coordinating terrorist activity in a wartime environment. What we should remember is that the military does not answer to any entity in this country except for the President. That includes the courts and the constitution. What I'm trying to say is that military operations supersede our opinions on "fairness", right or wrong. If the CIA thinks that I'm such a dangerous terrorist that they need to come wipe me out in the dead of night....well, I'm probably a dangerous fucking terrorist then. 1 or 2 innocent people dying in order to knock out 100 legitimate threats is a fair trade off...even if I'm one of the innocents.

I just wanted to re-quote this in the event anyone was curious about the mindset that opens the door to a Police State.

[deconspire]

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I just wanted to re-quote this in the event anyone was curious about the mindset that opens the door to a Police State.

LOL. Ok, that was kinda funny (especially considering how fiercely autonomous I am). I'm not totally disagreeing with you either, although I do think the idea of the US turning into a police state is a bit fantastical and overly paranoid.

"You're naive and can't see the big picture or the long-term repercussions".

This is kind of what you're insinuating, right? That knife cuts both ways. I absolutely respect your opinions, but they are simply that, as are mine. I just think the President made a sensible decision as commander-in-chief considering the situation. I like to cry foul and get up in arms at every act that infringes upon my rights as a citizen too (and to a larger extent, as a human), but I think this was an acceptable act considering the target. Now, if they start widening the scope of that act...then I'm on your side. But right now, in this case, I'm standing by the Prez.

---------- Post added 12-02-2011 at 03:55 PM ----------

	People like you are frightening. Not because of what you do, but because of what you let happen. There were plenty like you in Germany during the 1920's. The government officials would be dancing like school girls if they could get everyone to think like you. Looks like they're making good progress.

I'm frightening because I think losing 2 innocent lives is a fair trade-off in order to eliminate 100 threats? Threats that would destroy many, many more innocent lives if they weren't stopped? So if, theoretically, 2 innocent people dying would have stopped the 9/11 attack, that wouldn't be ok? And don't even relate this to the holocaust...that's beyond ridiculous.

	I doubt there are even 100 hardcore terrorists in the entire fucking country. This law is intended to control the population with an iron fist into submission. The only result will be a police state. When a government authority can have you killed for a mere accusation, that's a problem.

That entire paragraph is a bit lacking in factual evidence.

[benr3600]

When is the last time a terrorist attack occurred on our soil?

[deconspire]

2010 alone:
May 1, New York City: a car bomb is discovered in Times Square, New York City after smoke is seen coming from a vehicle. The bomb was ignited, but failed to detonate and was disarmed before it could cause any harm. Times Square was evacuated as a safety precaution. Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to placing the bomb as well as 10 terrorism and weapons charges.

May 10, Jacksonville, Florida: a pipe bomb explodes while approximately 60 Muslims are praying in the mosque. The attack causes no injuries.

Oct. 29: two packages are found on separate cargo planes. Each package contains a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams (11-14 oz) of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism. The bombs are discovered as a result of intelligence received from Saudi Arabia's security chief. The packages, bound from Yemen to the United States, are discovered at en route stop-overs, one in England and one in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by deaconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm frightening because I think losing 2 innocent lives is a fair trade-off in order to eliminate 100 threats? Threats that would destroy many, many more innocent lives if they weren't stopped? So if, theoretically, 2 innocent people dying would have stopped the 9/11 attack, that wouldn't be ok? And don't even relate this to the holocaust...that's beyond ridiculous.

Just who are you to sacrifice anyone? Answer that. I know you're used to it because you got to slaughter scads of innocent people, either directly or indirectly, on your little military adventures but we're talking about Americans here!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[deconspire]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just who are you to sacrifice anyone? Answer that. I know you're used to it because you got to slaughter scads of innocent people, either directly or indirectly, on your little military adventures but we're talking about Americans here!

We're talking about Americans that want to kill other Americans. I'm pretty harsh on those kind of people. And you're right...I can't answer that. It's just how I feel. Death is inevitable in war; I'd like to see the fewest casualties possible.

If it means anything...I'd be the first fucking person in that theoretical "sacrifice line" if I knew it would save American lives-I totally will put my money where my mouth is (assuming I can make it out of this thread in one piece, anyway, taking some OOGE shots in here).

*EDIT*

	Just who are you to sacrifice anyone? Answer that.

Actually, I just did. It counts if i was willing to sacrifice myself right? So, I can answer that because I'm willing to do it.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While this is true, the current legislation is far more troubling.

Three separate issues that have been raised:

- Paleoeco's link, which concerns indefinite military detention of anyone suspected of terrorism in the U.S. (the "current legislation," I'm assuming, since the Senate has tried to re-insert a provision allowing for it in the military appropriations bill)
- Patriot Act, which dramatically expanded the government's powers to spy on its own people (currently with provisions under judicial review, but otherwise generally accepted law at this point)
- The Al-Awlaqi case, which concerns the military's authority to target U.S. citizens who've taken up arms against the U.S. on the field of battle (no longer under judicial review)

I agree that the first is by far the most troubling. My only concern with the Al-Awlaqi case is, as said, is who defines the field of battle.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And the more difficult question of making war without being under a national banner. [...] Giving the military the power to kill US citizens anywhere it deems a battlefield exists is very troubling.[/

Yes, "military actions" - the type we've engaged in since Vietnam - make it more difficult to determing what constitutes the "field of battle."

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Al-Awlaqi was a US citizen, which is what was most troubling. Bin Laden's role as a combatant against the US was long established, and he had no citizenship issues.

I don't think being a "U.S. citizen" should be a factor at all. I find it curious that it's even considered relevant. In the U.S., our laws - and civil rights protections - apply equally to citizens and non-citizens. Again, I think jurisdiction is the more relevant issue.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And you think the military is going to be subject to civil courts?

They most certainly are subject to civilian courts.

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by deaconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, I just did. It counts if i was willing to sacrifice myself right? So, I can answer that because I'm willing to do it.

Good. Go. The sooner the better.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Am I the only law abiding citizen here who has a serious problem with this?

No, you aren't, and for the record, I fucking hate lawyers.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

is dangerously close to being nullified by the decision.

[ischuldt]

I'm perfectly fine with this, and I'd be perfectly fine with it if Bush was doing it as well. If the police believe you are a threat to citizens or a threat to the police and shooting you is the only realistic means of ending that threat the police have every right to do so. That's true for every American even the ones living on American soil. They don't have to ask a judge. They don't have to put their own lives at unnecessary risk to try and apprehend you alive so you can stand trial. They can just shoot you.

There's no difference here. This guy was hold up in a compound full of guard armed to the teeth and so was he. There is no way on gods green earth he was going to allow himself to simple be arrested without a firefight that could have cost the lives of the soldiers attempting to arrest him. Therefore taking him out from a distance is perfectly legal.

His citizenship is completely irrelevant. You don't decide who can be killed and who can't based on their nationality. You do it based one the threat level they pose and the danger necessary to apprehend them alive. That is all.

[Sumwun]

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm perfectly fine with this, and I'd be perfectly fine with it if Bush was doing it as well. If the police believe you are a threat to citizens or a threat to the police and shooting you is the only realistic means of ending that threat the police have every right to do so. That's true for every American even the ones living on American soil. They don't have to ask a judge. They don't have to put their own lives at unnecessary risk to try and apprehend you alive so you can stand trial. They can just shoot you. There's no difference here. This guy was hold up in a compound full of guard armed to the teeth and so was he. There is no way on gods green earth he was going to allow himself to simple be arrested without a firefight that could have cost the lives of the soldiers attempting to arrest him. Therefore taking him out from a distance is perfectly legal. His citizenship is completely irrelevant. You don't decide who can be killed and who can't based on their nationality. You do it based one the threat level they pose and the danger necessary to apprehend them alive. That is all.

Did you even read the part in the bill saying anyone can be detained for an accusation?

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Did you even read the part in the bill saying anyone can be detained for an accusation?

Detained for accusation is not assassination. If you violently refuse to be detained then you can be killed. That's exactly how every thing else works in the world when it comes to dealing with the authorities.

You can be arrested for a lot of bullshit. If they don't have evidence to charge you they can't keep you, but you can still be arrested for it. As long as the police have enough probably cause to detain you they have a right to detain you. If you violently resist them when they do that they can use what ever means necessary to detain you. If the only means necessary to end your violent resistance is to kill you then that's the option they have to go with.

Try driving down the highway at 120 mph some time, and then ignoring the police that chase you. You will be followed until the police consider you a threat to the public or to themselves. At that point you will be run off the road and if you die in the wreck too bad so sad.

[Heartfire]

Anyone that believes that authorities can be trusted to not abuse this law is insane.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Heartfire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyone that believes that authorities can be trusted to not abuse this law is insane.

Believe it is a requirement for having an effective police force of any kind.

[gecko]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can be arrested for a lot of bullshit. If they don't have evidence to charge you they can't keep you, but you can still be arrested for it.

I suppose, you've never heard of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
? Or the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If they don't have evidence to charge you they can't keep you

They can now.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I suppose, you've never heard of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ? Or the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We're not debating that. Those are definitely bad things. We're debating who can be killed without a trial? Answer: any one(regardless of nationality) violently resisting arrest to the point where the arrestors are being put at an unreasonable risk of life and limb in order to do the arresting.

You can debate whether there was enough evidence to arrest the guy, and you can debate whether there was enough evidence to convict the guy, but if you believe there was a legal means to arrest him that would not have resulted in a firefight that would have risked the lives of the people doing the arresting your just an idiot. The second he holed himself up in a compound armed to the teeth surrounded by guards he gave the ok to have a rocket shot up his ass.

---------- Post added 12-02-2011 at 04:51 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They can now.

Completely different debate for which I'm probably on your side.

[Einarr]

The friend of my enemy is also my enemy

As far as I am concerned, if a US citizen takes up arms with a foreign entity for the cause of terrorism, then they should be treated like any individual of that entity regardless of their nationality.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Believe it is a requirement for having an effective police force of any kind.

Internal Affairs begs to differ. Civil revolts against corrupt governments also beg to differ.