Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Year So Far STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Shop Book House Cleaning Paterson Paterson Paterson  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis Final Fantasy XIV Shop Now toystl17_gno
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 497 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 2:14:47 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Moderate says: "Acutally the sources I'm talking about are not Wickipedia"

I wasn't referring to your post---just the large number on all the forums which come from Wickipedia.

Posted on Mar 11, 2012, 2:03:25 PM PDT
Mike says:
Acutally the sources I'm talking about are not Wickipedia. Again the information i pulled was from WestLaw. Others specifically give valid opinions from Constitutional Legal Scholars.

Posted on Mar 11, 2012, 1:55:54 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Would these forums exist without Wickipedia?

Posted on Mar 11, 2012, 1:37:21 PM PDT
Mike says:
Don't argue with me. The lsentence came from a larger posting from the West Law site.
You can either go back through the threads here and read the whold thing or start looking it up on this or other web sites. I don't care as long as you look it up and stop just saying what your opinion is on the matter. This is not just you its almost everyone.

Also there are web sites for almost everything being argued here. Most of the postings are nothing but the writers opinion or at best they go strickly by what the ACLU has to say which is in major dispute. in fact so far they took the recent killing of the American terrorist to court and the judge threw it out. There are many opinions by recognized legal scholars on this whole matter. The majority say it constitutional and give actual legal opinions with precedents.

In the end targeted killing of an American or any other person has not been found to be unconstutional and depriving an American of Due process by the government, police, etc has already been deemed as being constiturional within fairly lenient guidelines.

Read what's out there then start giving your opinions and start citing some expert opinions in your posts and state where it came from. If its from the ACLU state so.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 1:17:53 PM PDT
Your Reply:"When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest." I've already given the source for this in an earlier post.
_______________________________________________________________________
Stealing a bicycle can be a felony. They don't raise the threshold for felonies with COLAs or anything. The felony threshold where I first worked was only $400.

When police officers are arresting a suspect who is resisting, how is he resisting without allowing the officers to act in self-defense? Personal, nuclear-powered force field generators don't exist. If the suspect is barricaded in his motel room, the officers may not fire an RPG into it. They have to try to enter it. If he starts firing at them, then they may act in self defense in order to protect an exposed officer. But, even then, they will cover any possible points of egress and wait him out. If he comes running out, guns blazing and running past them, he's no ordinary suspect-- he would obviously be a threat to the community if allowed to escape, and I don't believe that anyone would question firing at someone who has exited the building without accepting the offer to surrender.

I never saw your earlier post; but, I suspect that a case that would have a ruling like the one you mention would involve holding down a large, struggling suspect by the neck until he asphyxiated, or pepper-spraying a suspect with cystic fibrosis or some such thing, who died through misadventure. If a suspect is being manhandled to the ground by three cops, pepper spray and a taser, they can't give him a coup de grace to the brain pan for some instant justice. Under what scenario are you envisioning cops being able to gun down "resisting" suspects in cold blood?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 11:52:47 AM PDT
James G. Christenson says:
"A president has the right to order lethal force against conventional enemies during conventional war, or against unconventional enemies in unconventional wars."
***********************
It's like when you look at the ingredients of a food *product*, and artificial ingredients, and natural ingredients are both listed. Then, it could be...anything.

Posted on Mar 11, 2012, 11:46:40 AM PDT
B. A. Dilger says:
Under ancient Rome's Imperial rule an emperor could kill just about anyone--citizen or not. Of course with public figures they had to be a little more circumspect.

Posted on Mar 11, 2012, 11:42:38 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
The NY Times has an interesting editorial today exploring this issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-power-to-kill.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper). The Times proposes judicial review of a proposal to assassinate an American citizen similar to the review by the FISA court for wiretapping. What still seems to be missing is a legal rationale for killing a citizen. If there were such judicial review, on what law would the court base its decision? The Times dismisses this question as follows: "A president has the right to order lethal force against conventional enemies during conventional war, or against unconventional enemies in unconventional wars." Apparently, there is a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel which presumably states the rationale, but the Administration has refused to make it public. I think that if our government claims the right to kill our fellow citizens, we are at least entitled to a clear explanation of the basis for such a claim. Please note that I am not objecting specifically to the killing of al-Awlaki, who richly deserved to be killed.

Posted on Mar 11, 2012, 9:43:11 AM PDT
Mike says:
cobaltspectre says: There are very narrow circumstances under which police may kill felony suspects, and they involve defense of self and others. If the scenario is killing by drone, the police can't just mount an M240 machine gun and a TOW launcher on their police chopper and go felon huntin'.

My Reply:"When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest." I've already given the source for this in an earlier post.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 9:11:07 AM PDT
ET says:
Yes, we're supposed to amend the Constitution, and bills should not be able to supersede it. However, our reps (Rep and Dem) seem to look for the easy way around that process.

Posted on Mar 11, 2012, 9:00:35 AM PDT
It's because box-cutters can still be legally sold to Islamic terrorists. We need to close this loophole in the war on terror.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 8:58:07 AM PDT
Oh whatever you want to call it.
They passed a bill allowing this.
_________________________________
I don't know precisely to what you refer, but...

Aren't we supposed to follow a process for amending the Constitution if we are to change it? Why is a bill able to supersede the Constitution?

Posted on Mar 11, 2012, 8:57:03 AM PDT
That settles it. No more trips to secret Al Qaeda hideouts for me. And no more carry-on nail clippers.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 8:53:04 AM PDT
ET says:
You should really read history. Many scholars and historians disagree with you, yet you speak in absolutes, the first sign of a fool.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 8:51:22 AM PDT
ET says:
Are you still posting the same tired nonsense?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 8:50:55 AM PDT
ET says:
Thanks for the reminder. My ancestors would be ashamed.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 8:49:19 AM PDT
the Police don't need a conviction least of all in abstentia to make it legal and constitutional to kill felony suspects.

Neither does the military. If anything the rules governing the military killing someone are even more lenient.
_____________________________________________________________________
There are very narrow circumstances under which police may kill felony suspects, and they involve defense of self and others. If the scenario is killing by drone, the police can't just mount an M240 machine gun and a TOW launcher on their police chopper and go felon huntin'.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 8:32:32 AM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[You do remember that there was a Civil War, right? ]

Civil War is an incorrect name to place on Lincoln's war. Civil War assumes you want to overthrow the current government. No, instead, Lincoln's war is exactly comparable to the revolutionary war, with just as much legality. The only difference is that we won the Revolution and the south lost Lincoln's war.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 8:24:57 AM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[The military was intended to be used to defend the US and follow the orders of the President.]

Not necessarily follow the orders of the President. But to expressly protect and defend the Constitution.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 8:10:32 AM PDT
I'm not talking about Laws of Warfare. I'm talking about due process guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hasn't Obama, at his specific request, made it possible to arrest American citizens on AMERICAN soil under military authority without civilian "due process?"

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2012, 7:17:05 AM PDT
2/2 Tango:

Since I basically consider you to be a "friendly nation" on this board, I've gone thoroughly through the Wikipedia article on "Laws of Warfare" twice, now (once, the first time you referred to it, specifically, and another time, just now, since searching for your authority among all Google hits on "Laws of Warfare" would take practically forever, particularly without knowing specifically that for which I am searching), with the most charitable eye that I could. Yet, I couldn't locate where, specifically, you were finding that support in the Wikipedia article; and, having technically fulfilled the requirements of the second task, i.e., "[G]oogling 'Laws of Warfare,'" I was too intimidated by the scope of the implicit task of visually searching through each relevant hit for the specific source(s) of your support, which has/have not been specifically described.

I'm not even so much as trying to take a devil's advocate position; I'm simply trying to understand yours by examining those authorities, in particular, you are using to support it.

It may be this migraine suppressing my thought processes, but, I just can't find that to which you refer. Since it must be fairly small in the Wikipedia article for me to keep missing it, would you mind just quoting your authorities, rather stating the source of your support in such a vague and impractically broad manner?
***************************************************************
2/2/ Tango:

I know that I sometimes come across differently in a purely written medium than I would in person. Usually, that doesn't matter much. But, in the rare instance when someone's a designated "Friendly" on my IFF, but I believe that they may not know it, yet, I want to make sure that a post which might be misinterpreted will not be.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012, 6:23:57 PM PST
You really have no clue, do you?
Constitutionally the south had no right to unilaterally secede, which makes what they did a rebellion.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012, 5:46:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2012, 5:50:10 PM PST
Arthur Dent says:
Dragonwolf--"It's called the American Civil War. It doesn't mean it was an actual Civil War though."

>>JGC: My point exactly--It's just words to you. End of discussion. Great moniker, though.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012, 3:26:53 PM PST
What does term Civil War mean to you?

Again my only point is that the south rebelled, and were put down by Lincoln.
It's called the American Civil War.
It doesn't mean it was an actual Civil War though.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012, 3:19:17 PM PST
Arthur Dent says:
Oh, OK. It's all just a bunch of words. They only have meaning if we give them meaning. If I give them one meaning, and you give them another, who cares? But why do you bother to post on Amazon's *discussion* boards?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
4487 3 days ago
23M people would lose health insurance. Who would they vote for in 2018? 59 16 minutes ago
Conspiracy Theories??? Are any valid? 1556 17 minutes ago
Just released! White House tapes! 22 38 minutes ago
Cops Trying to Kill a Dog, Kill Innocent Boy Who Tried to Save It Instead 7 48 minutes ago
2nd Amedment calls for WEAPONRY control. 180 50 minutes ago
Israel Successfully Hacked ISIS Computers; Trump Leaked It to the Russians, NYT Reports 77 54 minutes ago
We LOVE To Ignore Anthropogenic Climate Change. [ACC] Our Reasons [Or Excuses] Are Myriad. But Have We TRULY Considered The Consequences As A Society And As Individuals? Are We Prepared For A Series Of Events That Could End The Human Species? What To Do? 4104 59 minutes ago
Mental Health Professionals Declare Trump is Mentally Ill And Must Be Removed 1465 1 hour ago
Status of the Drive on Raqqa 61 1 hour ago
Pelosi - Helps or hurts the Democratic party? 56 1 hour ago
Status of the Battle for Mosul 128 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  39
Total posts:  497
Initial post:  Mar 6, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 15, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer