Obama Administration Approves use of Drone to kill US Citizen

Schneiderman

Senior Veteran
Aug 9, 2008
3,653
262
34
Long Island, New York
Visit site
✟12,466.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hello, hate to be the one to break the belated news to anybody but we are at war with the Taliban. This was simply an act of war.

So when some agency (not the CIA because they work on foreign issues, maybe the FBI and/or ATF- they've done it before) decides that I am a threat because I own guns and dislike the government and kills me without a trial will that be an act of war too?
 
Upvote 0

Lockguy3000

Senior Member
Nov 14, 2007
1,075
62
NYC
✟9,055.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
the-terminator.jpg


you have been targeted for termination
 
Upvote 0

Wirraway

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2008
2,922
151
✟19,020.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
So when some agency (not the CIA because they work on foreign issues, maybe the FBI and/or ATF- they've done it before) decides that I am a threat because I own guns and dislike the government and kills me without a trial will that be an act of war too?

sure.

you need a rope but you're past the point of no return on the slippery slope.
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟48,000.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So when some agency (not the CIA because they work on foreign issues, maybe the FBI and/or ATF- they've done it before) decides that I am a threat because I own guns and dislike the government and kills me without a trial will that be an act of war too?

The answer to your question is no,they are totally different situations. However if you were a criminal and decided to run some drugs across the border then you might be shot. :idea: :holy: :pray::liturgy::groupray:
 
Upvote 0

Schneiderman

Senior Veteran
Aug 9, 2008
3,653
262
34
Long Island, New York
Visit site
✟12,466.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How are they different situations? When did the words in the constitution become completely meaningless?

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.

It doesn't matter where in the world he was. He wasn't in the military so he is not subject to military law. He was a US citizen with the rights and privileges thereof. I don't care what they say he did. If they can ignore his rights they can ignore yours and mine. If you support the sanctioned murder of this man by a government agency you support tyranny.
 
Upvote 0

Wirraway

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2008
2,922
151
✟19,020.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
How are they different situations? When did the words in the constitution become completely meaningless?



It doesn't matter where in the world he was. He wasn't in the military so he is not subject to military law. He was a US citizen with the rights and privileges thereof. I don't care what they say he did. If they can ignore his rights they can ignore yours and mine. If you support the sanctioned murder of this man by a government agency you support tyranny.

due process is a sliding scale. everyone knows that.
 
Upvote 0

Schneiderman

Senior Veteran
Aug 9, 2008
3,653
262
34
Long Island, New York
Visit site
✟12,466.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And the scale is based on the amount of freedom that you risk losing. Is execution no longer to be considered a significant restriction of freedom? I guess we don't need trials for people accused of capital crimes then. That will certainly be a relief to the "justice" system.
 
Upvote 0

Wirraway

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2008
2,922
151
✟19,020.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
And the scale is based on the amount of freedom that you risk losing. Is execution no longer to be considered a significant restriction of freedom? I guess we don't need trials for people accused of capital crimes then. That will certainly be a relief to the "justice" system.

can you make a point without falling down the slippery slope?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Schneiderman

Senior Veteran
Aug 9, 2008
3,653
262
34
Long Island, New York
Visit site
✟12,466.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Can you justify the sanctioned, intentional killing of a United States citizen not engaged in combat by the federal government without due process? I can't.

If you don't care about that man's constitutional rights I wonder how much you care about your own.
 
Upvote 0

Wirraway

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2008
2,922
151
✟19,020.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Can you justify the sanctioned, intentional killing of a United States citizen not engaged in combat by the federal government without due process? I can't.

want to point to the DoJ or DoD guidelines that say that?

If you don't care about that man's constitutional rights I wonder how much you care about your own.

you're not going to get personal, are you?
 
Upvote 0

Schneiderman

Senior Veteran
Aug 9, 2008
3,653
262
34
Long Island, New York
Visit site
✟12,466.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
want to point to the DoJ or DoD guidelines that say that?

That's quite a dodge. If you are arguing that the killing was justified it is up to you to prove it. Go ahead and do that like I asked you to before. I'll go ahead and prove that it is not justified as soon as you prove there is not a teapot orbiting Earth.



you're not going to get personal, are you?

You'd take it pretty personal if the federal government decided you didn't have any rights.
 
Upvote 0

Wirraway

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2008
2,922
151
✟19,020.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
That's quite a dodge. If you are arguing that the killing was justified it is up to you to prove it. Go ahead and do that like I asked you to before. I'll go ahead and prove that it is not justified as soon as you prove there is not a teapot orbiting Earth.

you have a very poor record of debating here. so I'm not going to let you create strawmen. you are criticizing a government policy for the CIA -- but you don't actually seem to know what that policy states, so you're making something up.

either you can state what due process you think is missing from the DoJ and DoD guidelines or you can't.

but first you have to know what the guidelines are, and you don't. right? you don't actually know what you're talking about. link to them.
 
Upvote 0

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
248,783
114,476
✟1,339,553.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wirraway

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2008
2,922
151
✟19,020.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
This should scare the beeheebers outta us.......there is NO rationale for doing something like that. It doesn't matter what he is accused of doing.

how about you? do you have a link to the government's guidelines?

it looks like they want to kill an enemy living in al qaeda land, not standing on your front lawn. the sooner al-Awlaki meets a Hellfire missile the better.
 
Upvote 0

Schneiderman

Senior Veteran
Aug 9, 2008
3,653
262
34
Long Island, New York
Visit site
✟12,466.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
you have a very poor record of debating here.

Oh really? First of all let me point out your ad hominem. Then I'll point out that you have added absolutely nothing at all to this discussion other than putting your hands to your ears and going "lalalala". Now I'll ask you to provide an example, just one example to demonstrate my "poor record of debating", or however many as you like because I hate leaving loose ends and I'm not aware of any debates on this forum, or any other forum, where I have not left either leaving opponents unable to refute significant facts and evidence, or acknowledging that an issue is ambiguous and not worth further discussion. But I know that most people like to disagree with me here on everything so here's your chance and everyone elses', go ahead and demonstrate my "poor record". I don't think I have ever been involved in an argument here where my opponents matched my level of validity and soundness in argument.

so I'm not going to let you create strawmen.

You apparently don't know what a strawman is so maybe you should focus on your own skills in debate.

you are criticizing a government policy for the CIA

What policy? This statement doesn't even make sense. Tell me when this has happened before, tell me what policy covers this situation. I must not have heard about the Kill US Civilians Without Due Process Act.

-- but you don't actually seem to know what that policy states, so you're making something up.

Oh the irony.

either you can state what due process you think is missing from the DoJ and DoD guidelines or you can't.

And there is no tea pot orbiting the earth. You're really going to insult me by attacking my knowledge of debate and then tell me my argument is bad because I failed to prove a negative? You need to leave this forum and learn something about the rules of logic before you start involving yourself in these kinds of discussions. You are embarrassing yourself.

I am not getting paid to be a teacher, you don't deserve this but I'll give you a freebie. You can't prove a negative. The burden of prove is on the positive. You have to show me the due process that was carried out, you have to prove that the act was justified. What is this policy you are talking about? You show me the "DoJ or DoD guidelines" that cover this situation, mister "poor record of debate".

Seriously, I feel like I was just told that I don't know how to ride a motorcycle by someone that paralyzed himself the first time he ever tried to ride.

but first you have to know what the guidelines are, and you don't.

And you do? So what are they?

right? you don't actually know what you're talking about.
No, you see, I don't know what you are talking about, because you absolutely refuse to substantiate your argument.

link to them.

That's YOUR JOB.

how about you? do you have a link to the government's guidelines?

That's YOUR JOB.

it looks like they want to kill an enemy living in al qaeda land,

He's a US citizen. What part about that do you not understand?

not standing on your front lawn.

Timothy McVeigh wasn't on my front lawn either. Should we have sent a drone to get him?

the sooner al-Awlaki meets a Hellfire missile the better.

I could say the same about you, what's the difference? This is not a rational argument. You accused me of "making it personal" but here you are attempting to justify the unlawful murder of a US citizen by the government based on the fact that you don't like the person that was murdered.


Is that the basis of your argument? "I don't like him so it's OK that the federal government killed a citizen without due process"? If that is the argument then, as I have already said, based on your logic your rights are moot. If that is the justification for this killing then it is equally as justifiable for the government to kill anyone it wants with no accountability. Is that your argument? If not then let's see your justification that you have thus far refused to reveal. But don't bother continuing this discussion unless you approach it with logic and prove your competency in debate.
 
Upvote 0

Schneiderman

Senior Veteran
Aug 9, 2008
3,653
262
34
Long Island, New York
Visit site
✟12,466.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Disclaimer, I will be away at work for the next couple days. Because I hold myself to a high standard I usually announce when I will be unable to respond immediately in a debate. It's really quite a stretch to call this a debate though since you refuse to provide a sound and valid argument.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Hello, hate to be the one to break the belated news to anybody but we are at war with the Taliban. This was simply an act of war.
You can't be "at war" with a non nation state.

Further, was this guy actually in the Taliban anyway?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟48,000.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
We are at war with the Nation of Afganistan. The Taliban are mostly Afgans and we are at war with them, we can't leave and let them gain power again. We are in a state of declared, congress aproved war with Afganistan. There is that enough for you.




:bow:War is bad.
 
Upvote 0