Assassination Program is a "State Secret"

[Bill3000]

So basically instead of Sherman marching to the sea, the north should have have legions of lawyers marching with subpoenas in hand?

You see, the difference is that Southerners aren't people.

 

[bhsup]

I tried to think of a superhero from the south to counter you with, but they're all based up north

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Is there no redneck super heroe or something? There must be.

Maybe it is this guy.

Spoiler :

 

[Karalysia]

Despair no longer, I present to you Captain Confederacy:

 

[Formaldehyde]

You might be a redneck superhero...

If any part of your costume is made of flannel or denim…

If your “secret weapon against crime” is a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun…

If your “secret hideout” is a double-wide with camouflage netting…

If your battle cry is “Git ‘im!”…

If you lose your powers from prolonged exposure to soap…

If you got your powers from radioactive chewing tobacco…

If among your powers you list “high school diploma”…

If your emblem is a Skoal patch…

If your canine sidekick has three legs…

If that sidekick’s name is “Mangy”…

If your arch-nemesis is Mr. Toothless…

If your teenaged cousin is your sidekick AND your love-interest…

If any of your enemies has ever confounded you by writing out clues in cursive…

If your rogue’s gallery includes the county tax assessor…

If, upon your arrival, the citizenry comment: "Look, over there, it’s a derelict, no it’s a ditch-digger, no its…"

 

[Onionsoilder]

Treason is punishable by death, but it requires the testimony of two witnesses or an admission in court. U.S. Const. art. 3, Sec. 3. It's in there so the government can't just run around claiming that people are traitors and executing them.

Cleo

Oh. I see. Well then, yeah I suppose the government is going rather overboard with this kill-or-capture thing.

 

[Lord Baal]

I watched this movie on Tuesday. It has Matt Damon and Julia Stiles in it.

So um, just to throw out a hypothetical. What if a US citizen during WWII had become a very high ranking general in the Wehrmacht? Would it be out of bounds to target him for either being captured or killed? Kinda like how we targeted and killed Admiral Yamamoto?

That would be treason, which is punishable by death. I suspect it would be legal to kill him on the grounds of self-defence; while he is a US citizen, he is leading forces against other US citizens, therefore it is permissable to target him to remove the threat to said citizens. I don't think it would be legal to keep plans to kill him a secret though.

Interestingly, there were quite a few American volksdeutsche, but no high-ranking ones that I know of. Though Robert Ley was American, I think.

I dunno about you, but I consider the Nazis to have been 1000x or more the threat Al-Qaeda could ever be.

Actually, if we're just talking about threats to the US here, they probably weren't. A cell-based terror group is more of a threat to the US than a backwards nation on the losing end of a war in Europe like the Reich was, even though AQ isn't that big of a threat. Of course, Germany was a pretty big threat to everyone in their region, but they couldn't seriously harm the US.

We shoot criminals that are citizens practically every day in this nation in trying to apprehend them. And the more dangerous the criminal, the more likely the use of deadly force being used. I dont really see the difference here.

The problem isn't that the US is trying to kill this guy. That's a non-issue. The problem is that Obama won't allow access to material proving this guy is a terrorist. In other words, there is no proof other than Obama's word that this guy is a legitimate threat. Now, I don't doubt that he is, but without a court of law verifying that this man really is a clear and present danger the US government does not and should not have the right to order this man killed or detained. If Obama can do this, then theoretically he could accuse anyone of being a terrorist, then place them on the "capture-or-kill" list. That's scary.

So basically instead of Sherman marching to the sea, the north should have have legions of lawyers marching with subpoenas in hand?

No matter what evils the South committed, it did nothing to deserve this horror.

I'm not sure the issue is as much about the killing per se*, as much as it is about the fact that the President is basically saying "I can kill whoever I want, just trust me, and no you can't ask any questions."

*even though people have legitimate reasons to be concerned about that too.

This is the problem Mobby.

I have a serious question, that I think might be reasonable. I feel like it might not be, however, so please point out where I'm wrong. Here it is: How is this different from the government asserting the authority to "disappear" people? If there's a secret list of people to be detained or killed, and members of the public may not even enter court to ask why or even if someone is on that list, if that person were to be detained or killed, isn't it a "disappearance?"

The terminology used. That's the only difference, so far as I can see.

I tried to think of a superhero from the south to counter you with, but they're all based up north

Radioactive Man was a Southerner. So is Rogue.

 

[MobBoss]

The problem isn't that the US is trying to kill this guy. That's a non-issue. The problem is that Obama won't allow access to material proving this guy is a terrorist. In other words, there is no proof other than Obama's word that this guy is a legitimate threat. Now, I don't doubt that he is, but without a court of law verifying that this man really is a clear and present danger the US government does not and should not have the right to order this man killed or detained. If Obama can do this, then theoretically he could accuse anyone of being a terrorist, then place them on the "capture-or-kill" list. That's scary.

Well, I guess I trust in our government more than most, even Obama in this particular case. Perhaps instead of compromising potential secret information on how get glean such information, some congressional oversight is in order. However, if the congress says, 'yes, its legit' you will simply be in the same position of trust....for them as opposed to the President.

There does come a point in time when one has to levy some trust to its elected leadership in that they are doing the right things to protect the nation. As much as I disagree with Obama on many issues, I dont see him just out to kill people 'cause its what the cool kids do.

Radioactive Man was a Southerner. So is Rogue.

I thought Radioactive Man was a Russian. Gambit was from New Orleans wasnt he?

 

[El_Machinae]

But at some point in the future, there will be different men in charge of our government, men who may not be as virtuous as the ones there today. And knowing this truth (this concept's in a Federalist somewhere, right? 10?), the Framers created a government "of laws, not men." (Adams) There are all sorts of things we do not allow the government to do to guilty people -- coerce their confessions, force defendants to testify against themselves, submit them to unreasonable searches and seizures, forbid them from confronting witnesses called against them, jail them without a trial by jury, &c. -- because we don't trust that the people in power will always be virtuous. In fact, our whole government is set up assuming that they're not virtuous. So we apply the law equally to everyone -- the factually guilty and the factually innocent alike -- because we don't know if the next person against whom the power of the state will be arrayed will be guilty or innocent. Our government is designed to avoid terrible ends by avoiding their beginnings.

I'm surprised you're not getting more traction here. Obama's government is generally seen as a decently moral one, but it appears that citizens aren't willing to push against it and thus Obama might seize the right to authorise death warrants without Habeas Corpus against American citizens.

Even if he's successfully stopped, given the apathy people are showing your argument, how can we possibly believe that the next administration won't be successful? Especially if the next one is less moral, and more willing to seize such powers 'for the good of the country'?

I'm honestly baffled that people are disagreeing with the outrage you're showing.

And so much for hiring a constitutional lawyer as President, eh?

 

[Formaldehyde]

So um, just to throw out a hypothetical. What if a US citizen during WWII had become a very high ranking general in the Wehrmacht? Would it be out of bounds to target him for either being captured or killed? Kinda like how we targeted and killed Admiral Yamamoto?

I missed this statement earlier.

You should read Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut. It is the story of an American who reluctantly agreed to be a spy against Nazi Germany. He eventually climbed the ranks to become their Minister of Propaganda and makes regular broadcasts heard around the world in which he secretly encodes the reports he anonymously receives from fellow agents. After the war he is vilifed by everybody who finds out his true identity, but he can't defend himself since it is still a secret.

The problem isn't that the US is trying to kill this guy. That's a non-issue.

Many would disagree with you. While it may be far simpler to assassinate anybody the US government or someone else claims is a terrorist, it isn't exactly due process.

The problem is that Obama won't allow access to material proving this guy is a terrorist. In other words, there is no proof other than Obama's word that this guy is a legitimate threat. Now, I don't doubt that he is, but without a court of law verifying that this man really is a clear and present danger the US government does not and should not have the right to order this man killed or detained. If Obama can do this, then theoretically he could accuse anyone of being a terrorist, then place them on the "capture-or-kill" list. That's scary.

But I certainly don't disagree with this statement. It is indeed quite scary that the US can target for assassination fellow citizens without requiring any proof at all other than the notion that the federal government must always know what it is doing. History has clearly shown otherwise.

I'm honestly baffled that people are disagreeing with the outrage you're showing.

I don't see why. Essentially the same people always try to defend the acts of the US government no matter what they might be. Why should this be any different, especially considering that it involves a supposed terrorist.

And so much for hiring a constitutional lawyer as President, eh?

He appears to be siding with the 5-4 majority currently in the Supreme Court more often than not. He certainly doesn't seem too interested in restoring the balance.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't see why. Essentially the same people always try to defend the acts of the US government no matter what they might be. Why should this be any different, especially considering that it involves a supposed terrorist.

Correction:

Essentially the same people always try to defend the acts of the US government when it comes to the 'war on terror', no matter what they might be.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Because I am not this, I would turn myself in and clear my name.

I fail to see how this is a valid argument unless you think our government is truly despicable.

How do you know that the whole intelligence is not simply just Yemeni government propganda to get rid of a thorn in their side. For all we know he may be remarkably pro-USA by any stanards you may care to mention. This wouldn't be the first time that the US government has been fooled by an outside organisation (Chalabi and his INC spring to mind as a particularly successful and easy to spot they're leading you on if you're looking example).

 

[naterator]

The first step is to fire whoever called this a "capture or kill" list. Seriously, it's a known fact that when the authorities are trying to capture somebody who doesn't want to be captured, killing them sometimes becomes necessary. They should have just called it a 'most wanted' list. Totally stupid way to draw attention to yourself and give fodder to your opponents.

That being said, the fact that they want to insure that no inquiries are ever made regarding these deaths is more disturbing than pretty much anything bush ever tried to do (and that's saying a lot). I mean, i can't think of any power i would like to withhold from my government more than a blank check with regards to murder.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Essentially the same people always try to defend the acts of the US government when it comes to the 'war on terror', no matter what they might be.

It is far broader than that. That is, unless you want to try to blame Israeli oppression and apartheid, African apartheid by white supremacist governments, the assassination and attempted assassination of of world leaders and others, the overthrow of legitimate democratic sovereign governments, the support of brutal totalitarian states, the fire bombing and atomic bombing of civilians during WWII, and many other acts on terrorism.

The mere mention of any of these makes you an "anti-American" to many of them.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Of course, Germany was a pretty big threat to everyone in their region, but they couldn't seriously harm the US.

Well Germany disrupted the entire naval traffic on the east coast by sinking hundreds (or maybe thousands, don't know where to find a source right now) of American vessels and killing thousands of American citizens (America was shamefully unprepared for naval attacks in the east at the beginning of the war).
Seems to me that the terrorists have yet some catching up to do.

 

[Patroklos]

What are you talking about, we had one of the largest fleets in the world. Were the RN, with the largest fleet in the world at the time, unprepared considering they lost far more shipping tons?

How they hell were we supposed to be more prepared?

 

[Camikaze]

It is far broader than that. That is, unless you want to try to blame Israeli oppression and apartheid, African apartheid by white supremacist governments, the assassination and attempted assassination of of world leaders and others, the overthrow of legitimate democratic sovereign governments, the support of brutal totalitarian states, the fire bombing and atomic bombing of civilians during WWII, and many other acts on terrorism.

The mere mention of any of these makes you an "anti-American" to many of them.

Oh, I see what you are saying there.

I was referring to other acts of the US Government; health care reform would be a good example.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well Germany disrupted the entire naval traffic on the east coast by sinking hundreds (or maybe thousands, don't know where to find a source right now) of American vessels and killing thousands of American citizens (America was shamefully unprepared for naval attacks in the east at the beginning of the war).

Indeed. I can't find any figures on the total number of ships which were sunk. But from February to May of 1942, U-boats were ostensibly responsible for 348 sinkings. It was a turkey shoot at first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II

I was referring to other acts of the US Government; health care reform would be a good example.

No. The same group is almost guaranteed to be opposed to any domestic act by a Democrat president, even when it used to be the policy of a past Republican president.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I'm not a fan of nicities, but the only issue here is that it has been made public. Just do it quietly and properly, and c'est la guerre. The only problem is letting people know before the fact.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

How they hell were we supposed to be more prepared?

By properly protecting your ships? Use of convoys etc.