# So now we're assassinating our own citizens? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120 "2011-05-08T02:50:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/61 "2011-05-09T15:23:58Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Should the United States be required to attempt to peacefully arrest all terrorists everywhere? Including the forces of the Taliban in Afghanistan? No. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/62 "2011-05-09T15:23:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Which part of this is a non-issue? The fact that the guy was born here. I mean, I’m fine to talk about this, but it’s been how many months now? > [@](#): > > I am not sure this qualifies as a defection. 😛 I said [defected](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defection), not defecated! Is _defected_ a past tense variant of defecate?! If so, that’s even better. He pooped. > [@](#): > > In politics, a defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state or political entity in exchange for allegiance to another. More broadly, it involves abandoning a person, cause or doctrine to whom or to which one is bound by some tie, as of allegiance or duty. > [@](#): > > Interesting point. It doesn’t address the issue, but al-Awlaki is said to have been at least aware of the planning for September 11th and knew some of the hijackers. If Obama gives the nod to assassinate him, and this man seems to be linked to (or is taking credit for) 9-11 in ways that are 10,000,000 times the magnitude of Saddam Hussein (rolleyes @ that miscalculation), then I can’t see how this doesn’t apply. Even if not, I still doubt the claims of “illegal!” by some. Obama said the military and CIA was authorized to kill him. The entire international community has had a chance to crack down on this one. The CIA (which is a civilian branch that carries out some ‘military’ duties) reports to the [Director of National Intelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper). He oversees the intelligence community. We’re talking military intel, CIA, ya ya ya. His job is to advise the President and and the NIC is supposed to make the gathering of intelligence an efficient process through inter-agency (if that’s how you say it?) coordination. There is so much oversight on the IC, and again, Congress isn’t having a cow. The U.N. (if anyone wants to spew that) recognizes the right of nations to defend themselves. If a-A is an immediate threat, it would appear that the U.S. can ‘kill him first’. Same applies inside the borders. If a man points a gun at an officer, the officer has a right to shoot. The gun-toting madman just lost his right to due process. > [@](#): > > Again, that’s not relevant to the citizenship issue. The deal in Yemen is that Saleh (the dictator who is on the verge of being forced out) is opposed to al Qaeda and has been trying to pass of the strikes as his own doing so he doesn’t have to admit he’s letting the U.S. run military operations in his country. I don’t think anybody’s falling for it. It isn’t? He has Yemeni citizenship. I’m all for reading some law that prohibits the killing of U.S. citizens. How are we \*not \*authorized to take him out? Seriously, I haven’t seen that argument except for “he’s a citizen!” and “the Constitution prohibits it!” The Constitution most certainly does not. Sure, there’s no long-standing policy of a hit list on U.S. citizens, but I think it’s silly to believe that the U.S. has never engaged in the assassinations of its own citizens. You want transparent government? Ya got it. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/63 "2011-05-09T15:30:35Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I’m all for reading some law that prohibits the killing of U.S. citizens. How are we \*not \*authorized to take him out? Seriously, I haven’t seen that argument except for “he’s a citizen!” and “the Constitution prohibits it!” > > The Constitution most certainly does not. “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” I’m kinda having a problem with depriving a US citizen of his life without due process of law. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/64 "2011-05-09T15:32:07Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Either you believe in the law or you don’t. I do. We have no right to assassinate another person. They have to be taken to court and found guilty. We can not cross borders and kill someone and somehow claim it is legal because we think he is a “bad guy”. Our beliefs and suspicious are not proof. > If he is found guilty in court and escapes, then we have to capture him and bring him to justice. > Once you cross the line into lawlessness, it is hard to redraw one. I do. I believe in a government of laws, and not of men. //johnadamsactionthere But please show me where the law prohibits such an action that you describe. A law is not a law because you think it’s a yuckiness. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Sure, give him a military trial. Get him an attorney to represent his interests, try him, if the evidence supports a conviction, convict him. If the evidence supports the death penalty, get that sentence. THEN execute him. After he has due process. I have no problem with a trial in absentia for him, and, if this administration has enough evidence to support a conviction and death sentence, have at it. 1.) A military trial isn’t going to afford the guy of the same process as a civilian one. 2.) If you make him a military target, he is just that. Kay? Not a member of the Marine Corps who went bonkers in Iraq and switched sides. 3.) I am not sure that the military courts allow for trials in absentia. > [@](#): > > I do have a higher opinion of the military, yes. I have a high opinion of the military. I also think (and so far, every one of my military friends have noted this to me) that any guy related to al-Queda or 9/11 that has **this much** influence about the day to day operations of our lives is probably going to get a stick up the ass. > [@](#): > > The Constitution cannot give Congress the power to violate the Constitution. Congress can’t decide that it’s suddenly OK for the President to detain and kill US citizens in the US without a trial. 1.) Congress has the power to pass laws. 2.) SCOTUS can decide if those laws violate the Constitution. 3.) This man isn’t on U.S. soil. 4.) He’s not being detained. He’s being targeted. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/65 "2011-05-09T15:33:15Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You don’t put a belligerent on trial. That would be like saying we should have given Yamamoto a trial prior to assassinating him in WWII. We didn’t because we weren’t trying to charge him with a crime, we were attempting to neutralize him as a military target, which he was. Why did Timothy McVeigh get a trial? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/66 "2011-05-09T15:33:16Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I said [defected](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defection), not defecated! Is _defected_ a past tense variant of defecate?! I used the right word. D-E-F-E-C-T-I-O-N. > [@](#): > > Obama said the military and CIA was authorized to kill him. _We know that already. Obama is the one who gave the authorization._ The question is whether he can actually do that, and whether it violates the law regardless of whether or not Congress cares. > [@](#): > > There is so much oversight on the IC, and again, Congress isn’t having a cow. Congress hasn’t had a cow about a bunch of Constitutionally questionable things in the last decade. > [@](#): > > It isn’t? He has Yemeni citizenship. What? I said I don’t think anyone in Yemen is buying Saleh’s claim that he’s behind the military strikes and not allowing the U.S. to operate in his country. > [@](#): > > I’m all for reading some law that prohibits the killing of U.S. citizens. How are we \*not \*authorized to take him out? Seriously, I haven’t seen that argument except for “he’s a citizen!” and “the Constitution prohibits it!” > > The Constitution most certainly does not. The Constitution provides for due process for those accused of a crime. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/67 "2011-05-09T15:34:50Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” I’m kinda having a problem with depriving a US citizen of his life without due process of law. I’m pretty much with you on this, but consider this scenario: We have intel that a bunch of AQ operatives are at a certain location. We also know that this guy is with them. Do we not bomb the place? Is it OK to bomb the place as long as he’s not there? Or, is it a matter of not going in, _mano a mano_, and killing him without trying to arrest him first (assuming he pulls and ObL and doesn’t fire on our guys). ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/68 "2011-05-09T15:38:38Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” I’m kinda having a problem with depriving a US citizen of his life without due process of law. Except. When a guy aims a gun at you, he just pissed on his own Fifth Amendment. When a guy plots to kill Americans citizens and possible military targets and camps out on foreign soil and operates a terrorist network, his gun just got bigger. There’s no Fifth Amendment precedent to apply here. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/69 "2011-05-09T15:41:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why did Timothy McVeigh get a trial? He was pulled over on the interstate by a police officer because he was driving a vehicle without a license plate on it. Upon going to the driver’s side the officer immediately noticed McVeigh had a bulge under his shirt and McVeigh admitted it was a firearm. He was arrested for not having tags and for illegal possession of a concealed weapon. He went peacefully. If he had been in a fortified compound even here stateside, in which him and compatriots opened fire at any approaching law enforcement, it’s likely he would have been killed as well. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/70 "2011-05-09T15:42:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m pretty much with you on this, but consider this scenario: We have intel that a bunch of AQ operatives are at a certain location. We also know that this guy is with them. Do we not bomb the place? Is it OK to bomb the place as long as he’s not there? This shouldn’t be an issue if this administration had already given Al Awlaki a trial, got the death sentence and had an order allowing for his killing. Had they done what they should and provided some kind of due process oversight before authorization of the assassination, it wouldn’t be a problem. > [@John Mace](#): > > Or, is it a matter of not going in, _mano a mano_, and killing him without trying to arrest him first (assuming he pulls and ObL and doesn’t fire on our guys). If he has received due process before the assassination order, I see no reason (outside of any other applicable laws or treaty obligations, they would have to arrest him first. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/71 "2011-05-09T15:43:23Z")
[quote=“Marley23, post:66, topic:581120”] I used the right word. D-E-F-E-C-T-I-O-N. Haha, now I’m using the wrong words. He still pooped. And I don’t see how you don’t think he is guilty of defection? What? > [@](#): > > We know that already. Obama is the one who gave the authorization.\* The question is whether he can actually do that, and whether it violates the law regardless of whether or not Congress cares. Which I think I addressed. > [@](#): > > Congress hasn’t had a cow about a bunch of Constitutionally questionable things in the last decade. Such as? Besides, I don’t see this guy filling anything with the Supreme Court. > [@](#): > > What? I said I don’t think anyone in Yemen is buying Saleh’s claim that he’s behind the military strikes and not allowing the U.S. to operate in his country. That’s fine if you don’t buy it. But the Yemeni government is cooperating. Coordinating, even. > [@](#): > > The Constitution provides for due process for those accused of a crime. If they don’t forgo that right. So you’re telling me the Fifth Amendment is applicable here? How? Precedent, please. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/72 "2011-05-09T15:44:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The Constitution provides for due process for those accused of a crime. Exactly. It doesn’t provide for due process for those actively engaged in war against us, because the constitution does not afford protections to enemy belligerents in warfare, that isn’t part of constitutional law. Various military regulations and international treaties we are party to defines how we may behave in regard to belligerents, and I don’t see anything out of line in taking this guy out with a drone or a cruise missile or a special forces team. It would be unconstitutional if we imprisoned him for life without a trial, or arrested him and executed him without trial. We would then be denying him due process. As long as he’s actively engaged in war against us his right to due process isn’t dissimilar from the rights to due process that a bank robber who is actively shooting at police has–he still has those rights in regard to a trial, but the police can and will fucking waste the guy and it will be a legally accepted use of force. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/73 "2011-05-09T15:45:04Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Except. > > When a guy aims a gun at you, he just pissed on his own Fifth Amendment. I don’t think you can make a legitimate comparison between self defense by an individual and a planned military strike by a government. If your neighbor breaks into your house and you shoot him, it’s probably allowable as self-defense. If you think your neighbor is plotting to kill you and you go to his house and shoot him, that’s probably murder. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It doesn’t provide for due process for those actively engaged in war against us, because the constitution does not afford protections to enemy belligerents in warfare, that isn’t part of constitutional law. And the problem with terrorism is that it’s somewhere in between open warfare and criminal conspiracies. There needs to be a framework for how that’s dealt with, and I don’t see one. > [@](#): > > It would be unconstitutional if we imprisoned him for life without a trial, or arrested him and executed him without trial. We would then be denying him due process. But blowing him up is OK. At best this is a logical absurdity. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/74 "2011-05-09T15:48:59Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Except. > > When a guy aims a gun at you, he just pissed on his own Fifth Amendment. > > When a guy plots to kill Americans citizens and possible military targets and camps out on foreign soil and operates a terrorist network, his gun just got bigger. > > There’s no Fifth Amendment precedent to apply here. 😕 I am not going to waste much more time with your uncited allegations of what you want to think the Constitution requires. I will point out, however, that the Supreme Court has recognized that deadly force can be used if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. If Al Awlaki is standing there with a gun ready to shoot someone, by all means, shoot him. But I find the idea that “he’s plotting something against us in the future that may or may not happen, but he’s an enemy so let’s kill him”, to fall a bit short of the imminent and significant threat. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/75 "2011-05-09T15:49:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t think you can make a legitimate comparison between self defense by an individual and a planned military strike by a government. If your neighbor breaks into your house and you shoot him, it’s probably allowable as self-defense. If you think your neighbor is plotting to kill you and you go to his house and shoot him, that’s probably murder. > And the problem with terrorism is that it’s somewhere in between open warfare and criminal conspiracies. There needs to be a framework for how that’s dealt with, and I don’t see one. > But blowing him up is OK. At best this is a logical absurdity. Well, I think the telling feature is terrorists consider themselves at war with us. So I think they would actually prefer to be treated as belligerents versus criminals. Unfortunately for them, they are not engaged in lawful warfare against us. There are lawful ways to conduct insurrections under the Geneva Conventions, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and various other terrorist entities are not doing that. Which means they are _both_ belligerents as long as they aren’t in our custody and _criminals_ when in our custody. It’s similar to Nazi concentration camp commandants. You are allowed to kill them outright as belligerents, if they make an effort to surrender you should accept it and take them into custody. Because of their criminal actions, they are not simple POWs who get to go home, but also war criminals who should be punished. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/76 "2011-05-09T15:54:53Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Well, I think the telling feature is terrorists consider themselves at war with us. So I think they would actually prefer to be treated as belligerents versus criminals. Unfortunately for them, they are not engaged in lawful warfare against us. There are lawful ways to conduct insurrections under the Geneva Conventions, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and various other terrorist entities are not doing that. Which means they are _both_ belligerents as long as they aren’t in our custody and _criminals_ when in our custody. > > It’s similar to Nazi concentration camp commandants. You are allowed to kill them outright as belligerents, if they make an effort to surrender you should accept it and take them into custody. Because of their criminal actions, they are not simple POWs who get to go home, but also war criminals who should be punished. I think you are confusing our treaty and international law requirements to non-citizens and the Constitution’s requirements for US citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “do not apply if President says the person is an enemy”. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/77 "2011-05-09T15:56:08Z")
There’s also no reason we can’t use a little bit of common sense here, either. As I’ve already said, there is no requirement that you be a belligerent **or** a criminal. It isn’t a boolean, you can be both. As to how to approach them, it should depend on context and what options are available. So: **Belligerent seen on the battlefield openly engaged with our soldiers** Response: Shoot to kill/neutralize. **Belligerent hiding in mountain base deep in the wilds of Pakistan** Response: Use drones or airstrikes in an attempt to destroy them. **Belligerent snuck into London and is hiding in an apartment complex there.** Response: Local police or military forces should go in and attempt to apprehend him peacefully. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/78 "2011-05-09T15:56:34Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Well, I think the telling feature is terrorists consider themselves at war with us. So I think they would actually prefer to be treated as belligerents versus criminals. Unfortunately for them, they are not engaged in lawful warfare against us. There are lawful ways to conduct insurrections under the Geneva Conventions, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and various other terrorist entities are not doing that. Which means they are _both_ belligerents as long as they aren’t in our custody and _criminals_ when in our custody. That’s reasonably logical except for the point of identifying them as part of a terrorist group. I have no doubt that al-Awlaki is involved with al Qaeda, but since they don’t wear uniforms and show up on the battlefield, that’s a tricky issue - and as **Hamlet** says, there is a troubling reliance on “the government says he’s a terrorist” in making that determination. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/79 "2011-05-09T15:56:44Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > This shouldn’t be an issue if this administration had already given Al Awlaki a trial, got the death sentence and had an order allowing for his killing. Had they done what they should and provided some kind of due process oversight before authorization of the assassination, it wouldn’t be a problem. > > If he has received due process before the assassination order, I see no reason (outside of any other applicable laws or treaty obligations, they would have to arrest him first. He’s on a hit list. He knows it. He’s been warned. You think he needs a trial? For what? Because he was born here? So that’s it – he needs a trial? Let’s try him tomorrow. He doesn’t show. He’s guilty on all accounts. Can we kill him now? 😕 Does a grand jury need to indict him? 😕 Why do you think that military targets should be afforded ‘due process’? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/80 "2011-05-09T15:57:10Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I think you are confusing our treaty and international law requirements to non-citizens and the Constitution’s requirements for US citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “do not apply if President says the person is an enemy”. Nowhere in the constitution does it say “does not apply if law enforcement says the person is an active shooter” yet law enforcement can and have shot and killed active shooters countless times throughout American history. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120.md?page=5)