That I would have! But I'm not a naive teenager anymore... I'm naive 20something year old.
Like I said though. The real issue isn't whether to kill this guy there or in a trial here. I can't think of one president that wouldn't rather have him tried and executed here. The real issue is whether we kill him or let him live. If you say kill him then I'm goina say theres apparently only one realistic way to do that and it's not by trial...
To that I have say let him live. If he gets capped during routine anti terror stuff or while he is busy being a bad guy... oh well. People in the business this guy has chosen don't generally get old.
I believe the greater threat to our country would be to set the precedent of allowing the President to order the execution of a citizen.
Either way, it's a hard choice.
__________________
Last edited by John Atkinson; 04-07-2010 at 10:10 AM.
I believe the greater threat to our country would be to set the precedent of allowing the President to order the execution of a citizen.
This is part of my concern and reason for being upset about this. The problem is the precedent this sets ... and what part of the Constitution allows the President to authorize this?
What will terrorism be defined as in the next several years? Sure, BHO may mean well (just as W did with some of his executive orders), but what keeps a future President (either party) from deciding that the opposition against him is enough to classify as terrorism and authorizing the execution of opposition leaders?
To that I have say let him live. If he gets capped during routine anti terror stuff or while he is busy being a bad guy... oh well. People in the business this guy has chosen don't generally get old.
I believe the greater threat to our country would be to set the precedent of allowing the President to order the execution of a citizen.
Either way, it's a hard choice.
Now that I can agree with I'm not sure on letting him live. But killing him that way brings a whole slew of problems. So this issue is kinda up in the air with me. I'm sure it will be with a great many people. I'm not sure it's setting the precedent that we can target just any ole American Citizen though.
This is part of my concern and reason for being upset about this. The problem is the precedent this sets ... and what part of the Constitution allows the President to authorize this?
What will terrorism be defined as in the next several years? Sure, BHO may mean well (just as W did with some of his executive orders), but what keeps a future President (either party) from deciding that the opposition against him is enough to classify as terrorism and authorizing the execution of opposition leaders?
It's a matter of precedent and the Constitution.
Slippery slope... You honestly believe that targetting a terrorist in another country this way would set a precedent that a political rival on our soil could be targetted? I mean be real here...
This is part of my concern and reason for being upset about this. The problem is the precedent this sets ... and what part of the Constitution allows the President to authorize this?
What will terrorism be defined as in the next several years? Sure, BHO may mean well (just as W did with some of his executive orders), but what keeps a future President (either party) from deciding that the opposition against him is enough to classify as terrorism and authorizing the execution of opposition leaders?
The police have the authority to use deadly force on an American citizen who poses an immediate threat to the lives of others. This guy is no different.
__________________ The Truth will never be mainstream. The Truth will never be popular. Orthodox doctrine will always be false doctrine.
Slippery slope... You honestly believe that targetting a terrorist in another country this way would set a precedent that a political rival on our soil could be targetted? I mean be real here...
The key is he is an American citizen. Doesn't matter if he's here or on foreign soil. Once the door is opened to openly target and kill a US citizen - it will not close.
Mock all you want. This is chilling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams
The police have the authority to use deadly force on an American citizen who poses an immediate threat to the lives of others. This guy is no different.
Nonsense, a criminal can stand in front of an officer all day long and talk about wanting to kill them ... but without the criminal actually pulling a gun or reaching for something, the police cannot use deadly force. A police officer who would use deadly force against a person armed only with his mouth would be charged with murder.
The key is he is an American citizen. Doesn't matter if he's here or on foreign soil. Once the door is opened to openly target and kill a US citizen - it will not close.
Mock all you want. This is chilling.
Nonsense, a criminal can stand in front of an officer all day long and talk about wanting to kill them ... but without the criminal actually pulling a gun or reaching for something, the police cannot use deadly force. A police officer who would use deadly force against a person armed only with his mouth would be charged with murder.
According to you. I think it wouldn't lead to any of the slippery slope, door not being able to be shut kinda stuff you are talking about.
Why don't I think it would? Mostly because the circumstances in this specific case are quite different than the circumstances in every other case you try to generalize it to. It is important that this guy is in another country. It is important that he is a terrorist and not just a political rival. These are the details you want me to ignore when you try to generalize this.
According to you. I think it wouldn't lead to any of the slippery slope, door not being able to be shut kinda stuff you are talking about.
Why don't I think it would? Mostly because the circumstances in this specific case are quite different than the circumstances in every other case you try to generalize it to. It is important that this guy is in another country. It is important that he is a terrorist and not just a political rival. These are the details you want me to ignore when you try to generalize it.
So then we ignore the Constitution? His civil rights are not applicable because the government says he's a terrorist?
You're trying to have it both ways, but you can't. Either he's a US citizen with rights protected by the Constitution, or he's just another scumbag that can be off'd at the governments whim.
But I'm not a naive teenager anymore... I'm naive 20something year old. 
Linear Mode
