Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.

1575860626397

Posts

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    I think this is starting to veer into slippery slope arguments. Is that considered a logical fallacy?

    Yes, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I'll tell you one thing, if you don't trust Obama with this drone strike thing I don't see how you can trust Republicans with their track record in the war on terror.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    I think this is starting to veer into slippery slope arguments. Is that considered a logical fallacy?

    Yes, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

    No, they aren't necessarily. Shryke provides a good summary of why not.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Superdupe wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.

    How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.

    So just like every other drone strike.

    My heart fucking bleeds...

    Doesn't the Constitution say every American has the right to a fair trial? Did his son deserve to die too? If there had been other drone executions of American citizens that makes it worse.

    No, it doesn't, and the fact that you think it does is a huge problem for a number of reasons.

    Uh....wow. Bill of Rights. Article V. Due process. Are you serious?

    Yes, I am. Words have meanings, and I think stripping the civil liberties of people based on their nationality is wrong.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • SuperdupeSuperdupe Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I think its safe to assume that you're not going to get assassinated so long as you're not, you know, living with terrorists and doing enough shit to get on the radar of the intelligence agencies.

    Like, it's pretty stupid to argue a slippery slope here, it's not like Obama's going to start having Tea Party activists shot or that Romney would start executing OWS peeps.

    silly geese are silly

    And no one is going to not do this, so if this is your line in the sand, you need to rethink your priorities.

    Want to stop it? Lobby your Congressmen. Lobby the President. Run for office, volunteer for civil rights campaigns.

    Sitting at home and not voting isn't going to do shit.

    I would say this is the perfect example of an appropriate use of a slippery slope argument. It may not be conceivable to you or me today that an elected official would assassinate a regular old American citizen because of political/ideological differences, but by allowing small holes in the fabric of the bill of rights now, you pave the way for larger violations in the future.

    Superdupe on
    steam_sig.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I'll tell you one thing, if you don't trust Obama with this drone strike thing I don't see how you can trust Republicans with their track record in the war on terror.

    Well, you don't get to pick which party you trust with various powers. If you trust Obama with the power, you trust all future Presidents with it.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    I think this is starting to veer into slippery slope arguments. Is that considered a logical fallacy?

    Yes, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

    No, they aren't necessarily. Shryke provides a good summary of why not.

    I think we can all agree that most people who use slippery slope arguments don't do it correctly, though.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    Again, what part of the AUMF do you not understand? You may not like it, you may think that it's the wrong approach, but that doesn't make it go away.

    What stops Obama from calling any American he wants an enemy combatant?

    The AUMF, for one.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'll tell you one thing, if you don't trust Obama with this drone strike thing I don't see how you can trust Republicans with their track record in the war on terror.

    Well, you don't get to pick which party you trust with various powers. If you trust Obama with the power, you trust all future Presidents with it.

    Well, yes, that's sort of my point.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Personally, I see the danger, but we've also got enough of a firewall built up that it doesn't worry me in the slightest.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    I think this is starting to veer into slippery slope arguments. Is that considered a logical fallacy?

    Yes, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

    No, they aren't necessarily. Shryke provides a good summary of why not.

    I think we can all agree that most people who use slippery slope arguments don't do it correctly, though.

    I'm guilty as fuck of doing it wrong from time to time. :)

  • centraldogmacentraldogma Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".

    If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.

    You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.
    Yeah, I'm not really seeing the slippery slope from "President orders assassination of a single terrorist target entrenched in enemy territory outside of U.S. borders" to "President orders assassinations of random U.S. citizens within the borders of the country."

    You could equally say "if you don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, that means we can never go to war, ever, because we might accidentally shoot a citizen."

    Oh, so now it’s OK for the targeted assassination of US citizens if their outside US boarders? Or is it outside US boarders and in a place the US can’t get to easily?

    I want to know what the technicality is here for subverting the Bill of Rights.
    I'll tell you one thing, if you don't trust Obama with this drone strike thing I don't see how you can trust Republicans with their track record in the war on terror.

    It's not a question of "do you trust Obama with the power", it's "do you trust any future president with the power".

    signaturecreation.gif
  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    Sitting at home and not voting isn't going to do shit.

    If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".

    If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.

    You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.
    Yeah, I'm not really seeing the slippery slope from "President orders assassination of a single terrorist target entrenched in enemy territory outside of U.S. borders" to "President orders assassinations of random U.S. citizens within the borders of the country."

    You could equally say "if you don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, that means we can never go to war, ever, because we might accidentally shoot a citizen."

    Oh, so now it’s OK for the targeted assassination of US citizens if their outside US boarders? Or is it outside US boarders and in a place the US can’t get to easily?

    I want to know what the technicality is here for subverting the Bill of Rights.
    I'll tell you one thing, if you don't trust Obama with this drone strike thing I don't see how you can trust Republicans with their track record in the war on terror.

    It's not a question of "do you trust Obama with the power", it's "do you trust any future president with the power".

    Again, that's the point...

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    Sitting at home and not voting isn't going to do shit.

    If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.

    8-> Tell me more, oh great expert.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Why don't we move this conversation to the Obama thread?

    Further Discussions of the Kenyan Muslim Socialist Usurper: The Obama Thread

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    As much as I disagree with a lot of positions the Republicans take, I do not honestly believe it is a party primarily comprised of monsters. If we do end up eventually electing somebody willing to start executing US citizens willy-nilly, we're going to be in such a world of shit anyway.

    That said, man I'm still uncomfortable with giving people the power to determine that a US citizen needs to be executed without having to go through a trial. Did they even do a trial in absentia, or whatever the legal term is for that?

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    I think this is starting to veer into slippery slope arguments. Is that considered a logical fallacy?

    Yes, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

    No, they aren't necessarily. Shryke provides a good summary of why not.

    I think we can all agree that most people who use slippery slope arguments don't do it correctly, though.

    I'm guilty as fuck of doing it wrong from time to time. :)

    I know, Spool, I know *pats head, hands you an ice cream*
    Spoiler:

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.

    How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.

    (facepalm)

    Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.

    It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.

    Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?

    Because it erodes the Fifth Amendment. There is a stark difference between an active battlefield and a targeted assassination.
    Taramoor wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.

    How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.

    (facepalm)

    Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.

    It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.

    Not when they openly advocate war on the United States and the overthrow of the sitting government, and are actively working with and supporting people who have declared war on the United States.

    I don't like that it was done, but I understand the reasons why and don't believe it was a violation of al-Awlaki's Constitutional rights.

    You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".

    If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.

    You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.

    Here's the thing-there is a word you keep using in reference to the Fifth Amendment that does not appear in it. That word is central to your argument, and the fact that it is not in the text is why your assertions are fatally flawed.

    That word?
    Spoiler:

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    Yep, the Constitution grants these rights to people. Not Americans, not citizens, and not 'lawful combatants'.

    eokNV.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".

    If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.

    You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.
    Yeah, I'm not really seeing the slippery slope from "President orders assassination of a single terrorist target entrenched in enemy territory outside of U.S. borders" to "President orders assassinations of random U.S. citizens within the borders of the country."

    You could equally say "if you don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, that means we can never go to war, ever, because we might accidentally shoot a citizen."

    Oh, so now it’s OK for the targeted assassination of US citizens if their outside US boarders? Or is it outside US boarders and in a place the US can’t get to easily?

    I want to know what the technicality is here for subverting the Bill of Rights.
    I don't see this as a subversion of the Fifth Amendment.

    The actual, honest-to-God text of the Fifth Amendment says:
    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 offense 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.[1]

    So, not only is there an exception for people who present a public danger, it also says nothing about a fair trial. "Due process" can mean a fair trial; it can also mean "I have a plethora of sensitive intelligence confirming his crimes, and no way to arrest or detain someone who is a threat to the people of the United States."

    Point me to what, exactly, is being subverted, here.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Yep, the Constitution grants these rights to people. Not Americans, not citizens, and not 'lawful combatants'.

    Glenn Beck's head is exploding somewhere.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    We've been doing Assassinations against enemy combatants who were American for as long as Americans have been enemy combatants.

    Which is a lot longer then you seem to think. Tell me was FDR wrong when he assassinated Americans who defected to the Nazis? We know it happened.

    What's different now? You could argue that the definition of "Wartime" has grown out of control and you'd be right. It requires defining.

    But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly.

    Quire.jpg
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.

    How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.

    (facepalm)

    Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.

    It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.

    Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?

    Because it erodes the Fifth Amendment. There is a stark difference between an active battlefield and a targeted assassination.
    Taramoor wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.

    How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.

    (facepalm)

    Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.

    It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.

    Not when they openly advocate war on the United States and the overthrow of the sitting government, and are actively working with and supporting people who have declared war on the United States.

    I don't like that it was done, but I understand the reasons why and don't believe it was a violation of al-Awlaki's Constitutional rights.

    You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".

    If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.

    You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.

    Here's the thing-there is a word you keep using in reference to the Fifth Amendment that does not appear in it. That word is central to your argument, and the fact that it is not in the text is why your assertions are fatally flawed.

    That word?
    Spoiler:

    It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    Quire.jpg
  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.

    How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.

    (facepalm)

    Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.

    It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.

    Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?

    Because it erodes the Fifth Amendment. There is a stark difference between an active battlefield and a targeted assassination.
    Taramoor wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.

    How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.

    (facepalm)

    Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.

    It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.

    Not when they openly advocate war on the United States and the overthrow of the sitting government, and are actively working with and supporting people who have declared war on the United States.

    I don't like that it was done, but I understand the reasons why and don't believe it was a violation of al-Awlaki's Constitutional rights.

    You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".

    If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.

    You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.

    Here's the thing-there is a word you keep using in reference to the Fifth Amendment that does not appear in it. That word is central to your argument, and the fact that it is not in the text is why your assertions are fatally flawed.

    That word?
    Spoiler:

    It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    Eh, the whole slavery thing makes it believable.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • SuperdupeSuperdupe Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is no flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.

    "It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    That's because you obviously haven't read the Bill of Rights. Those pertain particularly to American citizens.

    Superdupe on
    steam_sig.png
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is now flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.

    "It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    That's because you obviously haven't read the Bill of Rights. Those pertain particularly to American citizens.

    There is a quote feature dude. The fifth amendment certainly doesn't.

    Quire.jpg
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Let's move the Constitutionality of killing (purported) terrorist leaders living in a foreign country whether or not they are US citizens to another thread if people want to continue. The drift is strong.

    The NBC/WSJ poll released today shows a steady race with Obama +6, almost identical to the results from the last two months. Gallup and Rasmussen (R+3 R+1) don't match that or the Q and PPP polls released yesterday or most other polls over the last few months, but that's been linked to oversampling white dudes and incredible bias respectively.

    FoxNews has Obama up 2/6 in FL/OH and even Rasmussen has him +4 in OH.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • SuperdupeSuperdupe Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is now flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.

    "It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    That's because you obviously haven't read the Bill of Rights. Those pertain particularly to American citizens.

    There is a quote feature dude. The fifth amendment certainly doesn't.

    I used the quote feature earlier in the thread "dude". I didn't that time because I was quoting two posts and wanted to save space. And yes. The Fifth Amendment, being a part of the Bill of Rights, pertains specifically to American citizens.

    Superdupe on
    steam_sig.png
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is now flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.

    "It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    That's because you obviously haven't read the Bill of Rights. Those pertain particularly to American citizens.

    There is a quote feature dude. The fifth amendment certainly doesn't.

    You could make the argument that the US is unable to confer rights onto citizens of other countries. I mean the US Constitution is the supreme law of our country, but has no legal standing in any other nation right?

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • valhalla130valhalla130 Od's blood Sailing a longshipRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".

    If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.

    You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.
    Yeah, I'm not really seeing the slippery slope from "President orders assassination of a single terrorist target entrenched in enemy territory outside of U.S. borders" to "President orders assassinations of random U.S. citizens within the borders of the country."

    You could equally say "if you don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, that means we can never go to war, ever, because we might accidentally shoot a citizen."

    Oh, so now it’s OK for the targeted assassination of US citizens if their outside US boarders? Or is it outside US boarders and in a place the US can’t get to easily?

    I want to know what the technicality is here for subverting the Bill of Rights.
    I don't see this as a subversion of the Fifth Amendment.

    The actual, honest-to-God text of the Fifth Amendment says:
    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 offense 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.[1]

    So, not only is there an exception for people who present a public danger, it also says nothing about a fair trial. "Due process" can mean a fair trial; it can also mean "I have a plethora of sensitive intelligence confirming his crimes, and no way to arrest or detain someone who is a threat to the people of the United States."

    Point me to what, exactly, is being subverted, here.

    Actually, the first part you bolded seems to be referring to people who are serving in the armed forces of the US. Not to people who are fighting against us.

    EDIT: Screw it. I am not trying to sort thru all those quotes.

    valhalla130 on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is no flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.
    Citation, please.

  • SuperdupeSuperdupe Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is no flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.
    Citation, please.

    Are you serious? It's the next Amendment.

    steam_sig.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is no flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.

    "It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    That's because you obviously haven't read the Bill of Rights. Those pertain particularly to American citizens.

    Actually, I have read the Bill of Rights. Have the entire text of the Constitution on my phone, even. And the funny thing is, the terms "American" and "US citizen" don't appear once. "Person" does, lots of times, but a person can be of any nationality.

    Your argument is built on a flawed premise. If you keep asserting it, I will just keep pointing out the flaw.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • SuperdupeSuperdupe Registered User regular
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is no flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.

    "It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    That's because you obviously haven't read the Bill of Rights. Those pertain particularly to American citizens.

    Actually, I have read the Bill of Rights. Have the entire text of the Constitution on my phone, even. And the funny thing is, the terms "American" and "US citizen" don't appear once. "Person" does, lots of times, but a person can be of any nationality.

    Your argument is built on a flawed premise. If you keep asserting it, I will just keep pointing out the flaw.

    I see this argument all the time and it's so ridiculous. What is your claim, that the Bill of Rights is meant to apply to the entire world? I suppose the U.S. is allowed to set bail prices in Spain, huh?

    steam_sig.png
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    Superdupe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is no flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.
    Citation, please.

    Are you serious? It's the next Amendment.

    The sixth amendment covers the rights inherent in criminal prosecutions, not the situations in which criminal prosecutions are necessary.

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Superdupe wrote: »
    Superdupe wrote: »
    "But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly."

    There is no flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.

    "It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".

    That's because you obviously haven't read the Bill of Rights. Those pertain particularly to American citizens.

    Actually, I have read the Bill of Rights. Have the entire text of the Constitution on my phone, even. And the funny thing is, the terms "American" and "US citizen" don't appear once. "Person" does, lots of times, but a person can be of any nationality.

    Your argument is built on a flawed premise. If you keep asserting it, I will just keep pointing out the flaw.

    I see this argument all the time and it's so ridiculous. What is your claim, that the Bill of Rights is meant to apply to the entire world? I suppose the U.S. is allowed to set bail prices in Spain, huh?

    No, but it can set rules for itself governing how it behaves towards a group of people which is what the fucking Bill of Rights is doing in the first place.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    regardless of what you think of the administration's policy on this issue, the man in question was not a "known terrorist," nor was he "in a warzone" (neither of those conditions apply to his 16 year old son, also killed.)

    The administration's stated policy is the president can literally order the killing of anybody at any time.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    regardless of what you think of the administration's policy on this issue, the man in question was not a "known terrorist," nor was he "in a warzone" (neither of those conditions apply to his 16 year old son, also killed.)

    The administration's stated policy is the president can literally order the killing of anybody at any time.

    After due process.

    due process =/= criminal trial

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    regardless of what you think of the administration's policy on this issue, the man in question was not a "known terrorist," nor was he "in a warzone" (neither of those conditions apply to his 16 year old son, also killed.)

    The administration's stated policy is the president can literally order the killing of anybody at any time.

    After due process.

    due process =/= criminal trial

    what 'due process' is involved, then?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
This discussion has been closed.