Skip to main content

View Diary: Dabbling in terror and targeting Americans a bad career move under this President... (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are claiming a right to shoot that intruder... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, SilentBrook

    ...on your property if I understand you correctly. But I don't see how that is consistent with your stated beliefs that all American citizens deserve due process through the courts. Doesn't he get a day in court before you execute him?

    What right are you claiming to shoot him down in cold blood without a trial? Please don't say self-defense.

    I'll agree individuals have rights not necessarily given the state, but the government does have full responsibility to raise armies and conduct warfare for the common defense. And the constitution specifically makes the President the commander in chief of those armies, which gives him latitude to conduct military operations within the constitution.

    The administration is asserting that the drone policy falls within it's constitutional authority. I suspect the Supreme Court will get the final say here and I believe they'll uphold the President 9-0 when that day comes...  

    •  No, I am saying that me shooting a person on my (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      property is not robbing him or her of his or her right to due process.

      It may be depriving them of their life and liberty, but it has no bearing on due process whatsoever.

      Due Process is a responsibility of the State. It's the 5th amendment. Individuals are not responsible for the bill of rights.

      I don't have to let you talk. I don't have to let you own a gun. I don't have to protect your privacy.

      Due process is for an accused, not a victim.

      And you are the one that said I was shooting a guy outside my property, I was just rolling with it.

      There is also a huge difference between me defending myself and shooting a guy loitering on my property.

      That's kind of the point. The State can not shoot a loiterer (or a suspected terrorist) and claim that they were halting a crime that was going to be committed.

      Of course the State has assumed that right and here you are defending it, but that doesn't mean it's proper, moral or constitutional. Remember that Plessy v Furgeson was 'constitutional' for 60 years, until it wasn't.

      It's just a bit more complex than killing bad guys...

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:09:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Would you please answer the question. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook

        What about people who choose not to avail themselves of their right to due process? They refuse to face trial, go underground, and (we suspect) continue to plan and conduct crimes. What are we supposed to do then?

        •  Assuming they have already committed crimes, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          k9disc

          You capture them and bring them to trial, respecting due process and all that.*

          You know, like we were taught in grade school -- equal justice for all, innocent until proven guilty, all that stuff. That's what makes used to make us such a great country.

          * If they can't be captured, then at least we could arm the damn drones with sleeping gas or something non-lethal. Yeah, I know it's easier to just kill whoever's there and of course It Can't Happen Here.

        •  Not that you really deserve an answer, as you (0+ / 0-)

          and Bluestrike have been entirely obtuse as to my point and continue to try to beat your ideas into me - it's not necessary. I understand your point. I disagree with it, in it's entirety.

          I would use like force on someone who was actively doing me harm.

          I would not use force on someone who had done me harm or who might do me harm, or whom I believe would do me harm. If I did, I would not expect a get out of jail free card based on a self defense defense. If I were to act violently, I would expect that there would be repercussions and would budget them into my decision to act. It would be a big decision - one not taken lightly because of those repercussions.

          That's what should happen in the "24", ticking time bomb scenario you guys keep talking about.

          If Obama or President Bush were to shoot a hellfire missile at a bad guy in the US, to thwart a heinous crime, he should expect that there will be fallout. That he should have to fess up and come clean and plead his case to the People and to the judicial system, is important to ensuring that it doesn't happen frivolously.

          As is, or as I understand the NDAA and current 'war footing' Unitary Executive power - no court sanction, no access to details due to National Security and Executive Privilege - it will be used not only to protect Americans from harm in a terrorist attack, but it will also be used to protect the Establishment.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:36:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I guess it is a good thing you (0+ / 0-)

            are not responsible for our safety. A terrorist who has killed in the past and may be planning to kill again is not enough of a target for you? He must be actively killing at the very moment he is targeted? Again, thank you for not being my president. And my children thank you as well.

    •  In any civilized country, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, k9disc

      including my own (Canada), shooting down a person simply for being on your property is called 'murder'.  Period.  If that person is breaking down the door of your house, after you have ordered them to leave and called the cops, you might enter 'self-defense' territory but you will still have a lot of explaining to do if you actually shoot them before they have broken down the door and pointed a weapon at you.

      Coincidentally, most civilized people think the current US administration's drone strikes are murder, plain and simple. Someone piloting a remote killing machine looks at some unknown house from thousands of feet in the air, and because they see 3 unknown people enter the house they decide there's a possibility they're 'terrorists' so they launch a Hellfire missile at the house, without knowing or caring who's inside or why?  Yes, that's murder.  When this is done systematically to terrorize an entire population (Afghanistan, 'Waziristan'...), it is more than 'murder', it's 'terrorism'.

      You really think the US gov't should have the power to begin this at home?  Not the right, there is no 'right' to do this even in Afghanistan where there is arguably a war, there is merely the power to do it and have no one be able to stop it or prosecute it as a crime.

      190 milliseconds....

      by Kingsmeg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:19:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site