Government targeting of US citizens on American Soil

[Darias]

I personally believe this move by our administration verges on insanity and undoes progress we have made since 1215 CE.

I'm not a partisan person because I think parties aren't that much different from one another, but for those of you who are, I have provided the following sources:

For the right:

For the middle: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-doj-memo

For the left: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... ed-killing

Questions for debate: Does the executive branch have the legal or moral authority to accuse US citizens of "terror/criminal related activities" and then execute them without due process? Is the Constitution obsolete, since the Patriot Act already allows the government to spy on Americans without warrant, and the NDAA of 2012 doesn't care about the right to trial by jury -- is this just the next logical step? Is this a slippery slope argument, or do historic trends of growing government power provide a legitimate reason for concern?

[Jax Agnesson]

The central strategy of terrorism is to tempt democratic governments to adopt tyrranical policies, thus removing the democratic state's claim to moral superiority and political legitimacy. The US and the UK are obediently following Al Qaeda's directions.

[micatala]

I personally believe this move by our administration verges on insanity and undoes progress we have made since 1215 CE.

I'm not a partisan person because I think parties aren't that much different from one another, but for those of you who are, I have provided the following sources:

For the right:

For the middle: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-doj-memo

For the left: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... ed-killing

Questions for debate: Does the executive branch have the legal or moral authority to accuse US citizens of "terror/criminal related activities" and then execute them without due process? Is the Constitution obsolete, since the Patriot Act already allows the government to spy on Americans without warrant, and the NDAA of 2012 doesn't care about the right to trial by jury -- is this just the next logical step? Is this a slippery slope argument, or do historic trends of growing government power provide a legitimate reason for concern?

I have to say, this is an extremely troubling notion. I saw excerpts of Attorney General Holder's press conference today, and found that performance troubling as well.

Now, I can see the argument that if you have information a person is about to commit an act of terror, especially one that could kill a lot of people, that acting to prevent that terrorist act is an appropriate exercise of police or military power.

But there is still, in my view, limits to the exercise of that power, and the exercise of that power needs to be proportional and clearly necessary.

Holder was not willing to clarify the difference between "imminent" and "impending." Shooting an armed person who is breaking into your house is typically considered justified. Going to his house and shooting him because you have information he is planning to break in, even if the information is highly reliable, is not.



The police typically do not get to shoot people they suspect of having broken the law, or who they think are planning to break the law. If they have justification, they can arrest them, not shoot them.

The fact that arresting the person might be very difficult or next to impossible, and killing them is a lot easier, is not a justification for going to the lethal option.

[JohnPaul]

I personally believe this move by our administration verges on insanity and undoes progress we have made since 1215 CE.

I'm not a partisan person because I think parties aren't that much different from one another, but for those of you who are, I have provided the following sources:

For the right:

For the middle: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-doj-memo

For the left: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... ed-killing

Questions for debate: Does the executive branch have the legal or moral authority to accuse US citizens of "terror/criminal related activities" and then execute them without due process? Is the Constitution obsolete, since the Patriot Act already allows the government to spy on Americans without warrant, and the NDAA of 2012 doesn't care about the right to trial by jury -- is this just the next logical step? Is this a slippery slope argument, or do historic trends of growing government power provide a legitimate reason for concern?

I have to say, this is an extremely troubling notion. I saw excerpts of Attorney General Holder's press conference today, and found that performance troubling as well.

Now, I can see the argument that if you have information a person is about to commit an act of terror, especially one that could kill a lot of people, that acting to prevent that terrorist act is an appropriate exercise of police or military power.

But there is still, in my view, limits to the exercise of that power, and the exercise of that power needs to be proportional and clearly necessary.

Holder was not willing to clarify the difference between "imminent" and "impending." Shooting an armed person who is breaking into your house is typically considered justified. Going to his house and shooting him because you have information he is planning to break in, even if the information is highly reliable, is not.



The police typically do not get to shoot people they suspect of having broken the law, or who they think are planning to break the law. If they have justification, they can arrest them, not shoot them.

The fact that arresting the person might be very difficult or next to impossible, and killing them is a lot easier, is not a justification for going to the lethal option.

What is your opinion of the US action in going to Osama bin Lanen's house and deliberately shooting him in front of his family, although he was not resisting? Is such deliberate assassination now a legitimate policy under international law? Wouldn't it have been just as easy, or easier, to arrest him and bring him back for public trial?

[Darias]

My biggest issue with this is that one or two high ranking officials can deem a person a member of an "associated force" to al-qaida... and that they can do this without evidence. Even if they had good evidence, they would have to make their case in court... otherwise there is nothing to prevent a president from killing whoever he feels is a threat.

Imagine if they had this power during the McCarthy era? There'd have been a lot of dead/missing people, and some of them might have been Communists.

The definition of what the government considers a "threat" is so broad as to include reporters who've made contact with members of al-qaida... members of or supporters of wikileaks, which is considered an enemy of the state. The report by Judge Napolitano claimed that people who own guns and critics of the government are considered by the government to be potential terrorists.

I know it sounds like a slippery slope, but the reason why I think we're on one is because I can look back and see how laws used to be... and I can see how much power government has been given over the years... and I don't see a point where someone in government draws a line. I don't see enough liberty-minded people who vote accordingly, who could preserve their rights and the rights of their kids. What I see more and more is the mentality that government is always good, always makes the best decisions, and always has our best interests at heart. Most of all I see more and more people believe that it is okay to give up freedoms for safety -- even though in my opinion the claims we are safer are dubious, but the reality is we as Americans don't have rights anymore. The government has already breached several of our rights in the Constitution and there's nothing or no one that can stop them from doing it again.

[WinePusher]

I personally believe this move by our administration verges on insanity and undoes progress we have made since 1215 CE.

I'm not a partisan person because I think parties aren't that much different from one another, but for those of you who are, I have provided the following sources:

For the right:

For the middle: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-doj-memo

For the left: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... ed-killing

Questions for debate: Does the executive branch have the legal or moral authority to accuse US citizens of "terror/criminal related activities" and then execute them without due process? Is the Constitution obsolete, since the Patriot Act already allows the government to spy on Americans without warrant, and the NDAA of 2012 doesn't care about the right to trial by jury -- is this just the next logical step? Is this a slippery slope argument, or do historic trends of growing government power provide a legitimate reason for concern?

This is the issue where Libertarians fall flat on their face: National security. I would never put a Libertarian in charge of national security because their anti-government zealotry puts innocent lives in jeophardy. I do believe the government sucks at alot of things, but defense and national security is not one of those. The first and foremost duty of a government is to protect the lives of their citizens, even if it means violating civil liberties and the constitution.

Here's a very simple example. Let's say we have an American citizen who the CIA has deemed to be a co-conspirator in a terrorist plot. I, because I care about human lives, would immediately seize him and search and seize anything on his property that I believe is of intelligence value (this would violate the 4th amendment). I would interrogate him, and if he was not giving information, I would not only waterboard him but I would torture the sh*t out of him if it was deemed necessary (this would violate the 8th amendment). And the outcome would be that I violated his civil liberties but I preserved human lives. On the otherhand, a liberal or a libertarian would do the complete opposite. They would wait for a proper warrant before searching and seizing his property, they would give him the right to remain silent, etc. And the outcome would be that his civil liberties were preserved but human lives were lost.

I understand that liberals tend to have an abnormal superioty complex, and that they always strive to prove that they are better than others. And yea, following the constitution in a case like I presented above would prove America to be morally and ethically superior to other nations. But at what price and at what expense? I'm not willing to put peoples lives in jeophardy just so I can claim a moral highground.

And I also want to add that our rights aren't absolute. We have a first amendment that explicitly gurantees free speech, but people are not free to say whatever the hell they want. We have a second amendment that explicitly gurantees the right to own arms, but like I said this is not absolute. You can't own a nuclear or chemical weapon. And the other rights in the Bill of Rights are the same, they are not absolutely binding under every single circumstance. The same case you've made can also be made about the First Amendment. When the Supreme Court began issuing decisions declaring it illegal to libel or slander people, the Darias' of the world were out there decrying it because they believed it would eventually lead to an erosion of all free speech, just like they believe that things like the NDAA, etc, will lead to an erosion of due process, etc. Well guess what, it's been nearly 7 decades since the very first libel case, New York v. Sullivan-where the Supreme Court put constraints on the First Amendment, and we haven't gone down the slippery slope. We still have the first amendment, and we still will have the 4th-8th amendments despite the NDAA, etc.

[100%atheist]

What is your opinion of the US action in going to Osama bin Lanen's house and deliberately shooting him in front of his family, although he was not resisting? Is such deliberate assassination now a legitimate policy under international law? Wouldn't it have been just as easy, or easier, to arrest him and bring him back for public trial?

Keeping Ben alive would atract a long lasting attention of religious fanatics. This would pose a significant danger for Americans. Killing him was in my opinion the best possible solution. Also, I am not sure what would he tried for. For encouraging terrorism? Did he kill Americans? I thought he was helping Americans to kill Russians. So, Ben was a friend of the US.

[100%atheist]

My biggest issue with this is that one or two high ranking officials can deem a person a member of an "associated force" to al-qaida... and that they can do this without evidence. Even if they had good evidence, they would have to make their case in court... otherwise there is nothing to prevent a president from killing whoever he feels is a threat.

Imagine if they had this power during the McCarthy era? There'd have been a lot of dead/missing people, and some of them might have been Communists.

The definition of what the government considers a "threat" is so broad as to include reporters who've made contact with members of al-qaida... members of or supporters of wikileaks, which is considered an enemy of the state. The report by Judge Napolitano claimed that people who own guns and critics of the government are considered by the government to be potential terrorists.

I know it sounds like a slippery slope, but the reason why I think we're on one is because I can look back and see how laws used to be... and I can see how much power government has been given over the years... and I don't see a point where someone in government draws a line. I don't see enough liberty-minded people who vote accordingly, who could preserve their rights and the rights of their kids. What I see more and more is the mentality that government is always good, always makes the best decisions, and always has our best interests at heart. Most of all I see more and more people believe that it is okay to give up freedoms for safety -- even though in my opinion the claims we are safer are dubious, but the reality is we as Americans don't have rights anymore. The government has already breached several of our rights in the Constitution and there's nothing or no one that can stop them from doing it again.

In the time when the Constitution was written, horse was the fastest mode of transportation and black powder was the strongest explosive. Considering modern international and domestic terror threats, either Constitution must be ammended to include special exceptions limiting human/citizen rights, or another way must be provided to postpone the rights in order to protect citizens.

[JohnPaul]

I personally believe this move by our administration verges on insanity and undoes progress we have made since 1215 CE.

I'm not a partisan person because I think parties aren't that much different from one another, but for those of you who are, I have provided the following sources:

For the right:

For the middle: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-doj-memo

For the left: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... ed-killing

Questions for debate: Does the executive branch have the legal or moral authority to accuse US citizens of "terror/criminal related activities" and then execute them without due process? Is the Constitution obsolete, since the Patriot Act already allows the government to spy on Americans without warrant, and the NDAA of 2012 doesn't care about the right to trial by jury -- is this just the next logical step? Is this a slippery slope argument, or do historic trends of growing government power provide a legitimate reason for concern?

This is the issue where Libertarians fall flat on their face: National security. I would never put a Libertarian in charge of national security because their anti-government zealotry puts innocent lives in jeophardy. I do believe the government sucks at alot of things, but defense and national security is not one of those. The first and foremost duty of a government is to protect the lives of their citizens, even if it means violating civil liberties and the constitution.

Here's a very simple example. Let's say we have an American citizen who the CIA has deemed to be a co-conspirator in a terrorist plot. I, because I care about human lives, would immediately seize him and search and seize anything on his property that I believe is of intelligence value (this would violate the 4th amendment). I would interrogate him, and if he was not giving information, I would not only waterboard him but I would torture the sh*t out of him if it was deemed necessary (this would violate the 8th amendment). And the outcome would be that I violated his civil liberties but I preserved human lives. On the otherhand, a liberal or a libertarian would do the complete opposite. They would wait for a proper warrant before searching and seizing his property, they would give him the right to remain silent, etc. And the outcome would be that his civil liberties were preserved but human lives were lost.

I understand that liberals tend to have an abnormal superioty complex, and that they always strive to prove that they are better than others. And yea, following the constitution in a case like I presented above would prove America to be morally and ethically superior to other nations. But at what price and at what expense? I'm not willing to put peoples lives in jeophardy just so I can claim a moral highground.

And I also want to add that our rights aren't absolute. We have a first amendment that explicitly gurantees free speech, but people are not free to say whatever the hell they want. We have a second amendment that explicitly gurantees the right to own arms, but like I said this is not absolute. You can't own a nuclear or chemical weapon. And the other rights in the Bill of Rights are the same, they are not absolutely binding under every single circumstance. The same case you've made can also be made about the First Amendment. When the Supreme Court began issuing decisions declaring it illegal to libel or slander people, the Darias' of the world were out there decrying it because they believed it would eventually lead to an erosion of all free speech, just like they believe that things like the NDAA, etc, will lead to an erosion of due process, etc. Well guess what, it's been nearly 7 decades since the very first libel case, New York v. Sullivan-where the Supreme Court put constraints on the First Amendment, and we haven't gone down the slippery slope. We still have the first amendment, and we still will have the 4th-8th amendments despite the NDAA, etc.

Heil Hitler!!!

[Cewakiyelo]

I personally believe this move by our administration verges on insanity and undoes progress we have made since 1215 CE.

I'm not a partisan person because I think parties aren't that much different from one another, but for those of you who are, I have provided the following sources:

For the right:

For the middle: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-doj-memo

For the left: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... ed-killing

Questions for debate: Does the executive branch have the legal or moral authority to accuse US citizens of "terror/criminal related activities" and then execute them without due process? Is the Constitution obsolete, since the Patriot Act already allows the government to spy on Americans without warrant, and the NDAA of 2012 doesn't care about the right to trial by jury -- is this just the next logical step? Is this a slippery slope argument, or do historic trends of growing government power provide a legitimate reason for concern?

Yes, it is very unsettling. Reduce and restrict gun ownership, Do away with term limits, Make it legal for the government to kill any they feel a threat to, they say the country, but they mean the government. Can anyone say Socialism. Get these citizens under control.