Would you support assassination of accused suspect, American or foreign, without a trial?

[doodle]

I had posed this question earlier about Presidential powers regarding assassination of "domestic terrorists" but would like to quantify support/opposition for the idea of assassination of a suspect/accused without a trial regardless of his/her nationality/race/color/creed/religion etc

[pcosmar]

No,
But I believe it has and is being done. With little or no reason.

[doodle]

I agree, we have a moral sinking taking place right in front of our eyes as fear is transforming some people into adopting methods of lawless disregard for basic principles of fairness and sanctity of innocent life while using crimes against other innocent as crutches.

[goldencane]

ooops, I accidentally pressed yes!! crap.

[jmdrake]

No,
But I believe it has and is being done. With little or no reason.

Randy Weaver's wife?

[messana]

I don't see the difference of discriminating between domestic and foreign terrorists.

My dilemma is if we are in a legitimate war against a particular group, does all accused terrorists deserve a fair trial? If that's the case, then we shouldn't be bombing them, but somehow capturing them. Then that wouldn't even constitute a 'war' per se.

[doodle]

"we are in a legitimate war against a particular group"

We are at war against groups we were funding/arming just few years back. I would have phrased it as "facing consequences of irrational foreign policy" instead of being in a "legitimate war".

[ds21089]

Of course not. Killing anyone based of ASSUMPTIONS is bullshit. If this case were taken to court, maybe something would slip that would give the American people something to think about, but you know of course the government wouldn't allow that. What exactly has been proven that Tim Osman even did?

[jonhowe]

"we are in a legitimate war against a particular group"

We are at war against groups we were funding/arming just few years back. I would have phrased it as "facing consequences of irrational foreign policy" instead of being in a "legitimate war".

No, that's not it. We acted wrongly, that's true. But the "we" is our government in that instance, not "we" in the twin towers on 9-11. We, the PEOPLE, did not deserve 9-11. Saying that we should just "face the consequences" of our actions, when the "we" that died did not take those actions, is illogical.

The details of how this went down are questionable in their legality, sure, but to say that we should have just accepted 9-11 and moved on (is that what you're saying? I hope I'm misreading you) is absolutely ridiculous.

[doodle]

I have not seen any evidence implicating Tim O other than assertions, accusations from some politicians and media claims.

Good point ds.

But then again, what about the "Trust the President" doctrine that was used for Iraq wmd mushroom cloud threat invasion?

[Mach]

Of course not. Killing anyone based of ASSUMPTIONS is bullshit. If this case were taken to court, maybe something would slip that would give the American people something to think about, but you know of course the government wouldn't allow that. What exactly has been proven that Tim Osman even did?

Not only was nothing ever proven.... he wasn't even ever "Wanted" for 9/11!

It seems to have just been a giant 2012 Presidential Election Public Relations play.

Didn't you know that "Obama is a Hero" now?

[doodle]

ooops, I accidentally pressed yes!! crap.

How could you :)

[Mini-Me]

Constitutionally and legally speaking? No. Murder should never be institutionalized. Since that was the context the OP assumed, I'm recording a "NAY" vote for the poll.

Morally speaking? I can sympathize with individuals with no expectation of immunity making an exception and assassinating someone if they truly believed it was the right thing to do...but they need to be putting their own asses on the line by doing so. Any assassination should be followed by a trial...for the people performing the assassination. ;) There should be an understanding that anyone who orders an assassination or performs one has acted outside of their official capacity and must be put on trial (where the jury retains full rights to jury nullification).

Incidentally, this is how I believe wars should be conducted: Instead of throwing hordes of our 18-year-olds against their 18-year-olds so they can slaughter each other, the actual leaders responsible for the mess should have some skin in the game. War should be exclusively about old bastards attempting targeted assassinations against each other, and then the morality of their actions can be determined at their jury trials. (Yes, I'm dead serious.)

[heavenlyboy34]

Constitutionally and legally speaking? No. Murder should never be institutionalized. Since that was the context the OP assumed, I'm recording a "NAY" vote for the poll.

Morally speaking? I can sympathize with individuals with no expectation of immunity making an exception and assassinating someone if they truly believed it was the right thing to do...but they need to be putting their own asses on the line by doing so. Any assassination should be followed by a trial...for the people performing the assassination. ;) There should be an understanding that anyone who orders an assassination or performs one has acted outside of their official capacity and must be put on trial (where the jury retains full rights to jury nullification).

Incidentally, this is how I believe wars should be conducted: Instead of throwing hordes of our 18-year-olds against their 18-year-olds so they can slaughter each other, the actual leaders responsible for the mess should have some skin in the game. War should be exclusively about old bastards attempting targeted assassinations against each other, and then the morality of their actions can be determined at their jury trials. (Yes, I'm dead serious.)

Agreed. And this used to be common. Kings and emperors led their troops into battle in more civilized times and places. With the advent of democracy/republicanism, elected leaders suddenly had nothing to lose when starting a war/conflict. This provides incentive for all manner of horrid, evil things.

[DamianTV]

Absolutely not. Lead by example.

If we expect for us to have rights to a fair trial when being accused of anything, then we need to treat every other human being on the planet the same way, and provide them with an example of what Freedom truly means. The idea of even having a Trial is to stack the odds in favor of Liberty.

[doodle]

Well said Damian.

Mini-Me, your concept of after the fact trials is very interesting, but don't know if it ever happens or will when order is given by executive like the POTUS. It may appear practical but chances of a trial being held after the fact seems very unlikely. Legal experts may have better view on this as it may require change in laws.

[Teaser Rate]

Under the right circumstances and during war time.

[doodle]

Under the right circumstances and during war time.

Does that incude perpetual wars like "war on drugs", "war on terror", "war on domestic terrorists" etc?

[virgil47]

Try leaving out the American in the poll and see what the results are.

[LisaNY]

Nope. Even the Nazis were given trials at Nuremberg and they killed a hell of a lot more people than osama bin douchebag.

[Teaser Rate]

Does that incude perpetual wars like "war on drugs", "war on terror", "war on domestic terrorists" etc?

It obviously doesn't include symbolic wars such as the war on drugs or poverty, but it's becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference between war and peace now that our enemies are dispersed groups of fanatics instead of nation states.

[pcosmar]

our enemies

Speak for yourself.
I have no enemies in the Muslim world. I don't have any known enemies outside the US. (well,, the UN perhaps)

I am far more concerned with the clear and present danger from my own government.

[Roxi]

ooops, I accidentally pressed yes!! crap.

Thanks for clarifying, I was about to call you a bad name.

[Roxi]

Anyone who said yes is a [Censored]

[jonhowe]

Speak for yourself.
I have no enemies in the Muslim world. I don't have any known enemies outside the US. (well,, the UN perhaps)

I am far more concerned with the clear and present danger from my own government.

You may not have enemies in the muslim world, but there are certainly people there who see YOU as an enemy.

Does this mean we should invade them? No. But don't feel too comfortable if you head over there.

[Teaser Rate]

Speak for yourself.
I have no enemies in the Muslim world. I don't have any known enemies outside the US. (well,, the UN perhaps)

I am far more concerned with the clear and present danger from my own government.

Did you forget about 9/11?

[pcosmar]

Did you forget about 9/11?

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2009/05/giuliani.jpg

What has that got to do with anything?

I didn't order NORAD to stand down.

[doodle]

It obviously doesn't include symbolic wars such as the war on drugs or poverty, but it's becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference between war and peace now that our enemies are dispersed groups of fanatics instead of nation states.

Besides the fanatics we have groomed, armed/funded in the past, vast portion of other opposition to our military presence in foreign countries appears to be people who are fighting against occupation of their lands by a foreign occupier. At times our foreign policy seems just as fanatical/irrational as those we term "fanatics".





Anyone who said yes is a [Censored]

Just one vote, other was a mistake click vote.

But we should be tolerant of differing views :)

[DamianTV]

Did you forget about 9/11?

Did you forget that 9/11 is an inside job? And even if you dont, did you forget how our own government has hijacked every bit of Freedom they could? How much money Cheney made off of Haliburton?

The real terror of any terrorist attack occurs when people that had nothing to do with the attack suffer as a result.

[mport1]

It is immoral to kill anybody unless it is in direct response to an immediate threat as it is occurring.

[Teaser Rate]

Did you forget that 9/11 is an inside job? And even if you dont, did you forget how our own government has hijacked every bit of Freedom they could? How much money Cheney made off of Haliburton?

The real terror of any terrorist attack occurs when people that had nothing to do with the attack suffer as a result.

Tell that to the families of the 3000 Americans who perished on that day.

[Teaser Rate]

It is immoral to kill anybody unless it is in direct response to an immediate threat as it is occurring.

What is immediate? If it’s okay to forcefully stop someone from committing a crime 5 seconds from now, why is it not okay to use the same force to prevent the same crime 5 hours or 5 days from now?

If we hadn’t killed him, he would eventually have killed more Americans, this operation was absolutely one of self-defense.

[pcosmar]

Tell that to the families of the 3000 Americans who perished on that day.

That shit didn't fly the last election Rudy.
It ain't got wings today.

[WilliamC]

According to the US Constitution only Congress can do this.

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

So no, I don't support the President having the authority to make the decision, but he could as commander-in-cheif be involved in implimenting it.

[marc1888]

If you think bypassing the law of the land to kill someone is ok then you have no moral right in my opinion to complain when others bypass the law for their reasoning. You cannot argue that murder for example is less criminal than taxation, denial of civil liberties or any other of the states crimes.

[pcosmar]

According to the US Constitution only Congress can do this.

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

So no, I don't support the President having the authority to make the decision, but he could as commander-in-cheif be involved in implimenting it.
NO. He can not
Letters of Marque and Reprisal are given by Congress. They are given to Private individuals.
It is not in the hands of the President. And it involves NO MILITARY. and no military action.

[doodle]

Did you forget about 9/11?

I doubt anyone here has forgotten about 9/11 (or OKC bombing or USSL bombing for that matter). What does that prove?