# 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:** 5
**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, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/81 "2011-05-09T16:00:06Z")
> [@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”. Actually, the Constitution says that Congress may enact laws regarding treason, and Congress has done so. It is the _only_ specific crime mentioned in the Constitution. ---
**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, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/82 "2011-05-09T16:02:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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, Whew. > [@](#): > > but since they don’t wear uniforms and show up on the battlefield, that’s a tricky issue Yeah. Harder to kill. > [@](#): > > - and as **Hamlet** says, there is a troubling reliance on “the government says he’s a terrorist” in making that determination. You have doubt? Government saying Joe Bloe my neighbor is a terrorist? Doubtful. Government saying this guy who is all over the internet and has a 10 year history of terrorism is a terrorist? Hmm…I concur. ---
**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, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/83 "2011-05-09T16:06:31Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > 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? 😕 I’m getting the sense that either you don’t know what trials are - the fact that the guy knows he’s being targeted doesn’t mean he doesn’t need a trial - or you’re OK with show trials as long as you’re sure the person is guilty. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Government saying Joe Bloe my neighbor is a terrorist? Doubtful. Government saying this guy who is all over the internet and has a 10 year history of terrorism is a terrorist? Hmm…I concur. Then shouldn’t there be some kind of rubric that allows the government to determine this guy is a terrorist that wouldn’t also allow them to say your neighbor is a terrorist just as easily? ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/84 "2011-05-09T16:09:37Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I am not going to waste much more time with your uncited allegations of what you want to think the Constitution requires. Un-cited allegations?! I’m sorry, I thought this was common knowledge! :eek: > [@](#): > > 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. …yezzz. That would be the common knowledge part. There are also several other ways to waive your right to due process (at least temporarily), but carry on. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, well, the legal community (and the U.N.) largely disagrees. We’re not able to reasonably send in ground troops to capture him. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/85 "2011-05-09T16:15:22Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > He’s on a hit list. He knows it. He’s been warned. You think he needs a trial? For what? Because the Constitution requires it and because it’s a good idea. Call me crazy, but I’m not comfortable with the idea of the President having the power to kill, without trial, anybody, anywhere in the world based only on his say so. I think, and the founders thought, powers as great as those should come with some degree of oversight. > [@Citizen Pained](#): > > Why do you think that military targets should be afforded ‘due process’? I don’t. US citizens, however, should be. Calling a US citizen a “military target” and then killing them flies in the face of the Constitution and what is right. No matter how many smilies you use, that shouldn’t change. ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/86 "2011-05-09T16:17:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. Yep, and we have had the Supreme Court rule on that and create a system of rules and laws determining when deadly force can be used, who it can be used on, and where it can be used. It’s been a part of our judicial system for decades, going through the determinations on case by case basis, with judicial review, and jury trials. It’s a far cry from "we can kill him because he’s an enemy of the US because the President said so. ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/87 "2011-05-09T16:18:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m getting the sense that either you don’t know what trials are - the fact that the guy knows he’s being targeted doesn’t mean he doesn’t need a trial - or you’re OK with show trials as long as you’re sure the person is guilty. I’m getting the sense that you think that conspiring against the United States with a foreign enemy somehow gets you kid gloves. > [@](#): > > Then shouldn’t there be some kind of rubric that allows the government to determine this guy is a terrorist that wouldn’t also allow them to say your neighbor is a terrorist just as easily? Apparently the all branches of the U.S. government that I can think of, the U.N., our NATO allies, and pretty much the international community has determined he is a terrorist. Oh snaps, I hate to pull this one out, but the [PATRIOT ACT](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) defines domestic terrorism. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/88 "2011-05-09T16:19:02Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Un-cited allegations?! I’m sorry, I thought this was common knowledge! :eek: You thought wrong. I can see I’m simply wasting my time with you. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/89 "2011-05-09T16:20:36Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. Yes, probably. Is Al-Awlaki in a fortified compound from which he will open fire on approaching law enforcement? ---
**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, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/90 "2011-05-09T16:21:05Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Actually, the Constitution says that Congress may enact laws regarding treason, and Congress has done so. It is the _only_ specific crime mentioned in the Constitution. Reread the Constitution and it’s requirements for treason, as well as it’s requirements for due process. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution is a good place to start. Yep, wasting my time. ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/91 "2011-05-09T16:22:38Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Because the Constitution requires it and because it’s a good idea. Where? The penalty for treason is death. The SCOTUS has already ruled in the many instances where someone has waived their Fifth Amendment rights. > [@](#): > > Call me crazy, but I’m not comfortable with the idea of the President having the power to kill, without trial, anybody, anywhere in the world based only on his say so. Well, that would make you a couple of crayons short of a legal box there, since the President’s authority regarding war and intelligence matters is kept in check. Not to mention that huge Senate-confirmed cabinet. Do you really think the President can just put an unchecked hit out on someone? 😕 > [@](#): > > I think, and the founders thought, powers as great as those should come with some degree of oversight. Plenty of oversight…as I’ve pointed out…but you are ignoring it. > [@](#): > > I don’t. US citizens, however, should be. Calling a US citizen a “military target” and then killing them\*\* flies in the face of the Constitution\*\* Argue that. Really. Argue that. I’m happy to read. All you’ve said is, “That’s wrong!” and “He should be given a trial!” and “He’s not aiming a real gun at us!” > [@](#): > > and what is right. Your opinion a law does not make. ---
**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, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/92 "2011-05-09T16:28:16Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Reread the Constitution and it’s requirements for treason, as well as it’s requirements for due process. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution. > > Yep, wasting my time. Read [18 USC , § 2381](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html). He doesn’t seem to mind the target on his head. He probably enjoys it. Treason aside: _shrug_ He’s a member of another army. We’re in an active war. Can’t help him. I understand you think that something isn’t legal because it doesn’t feel right, but that doesn’t make it law. This is a nation of laws. ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/93 "2011-05-09T16:29:50Z")
What army is he a member of? ---
**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, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/94 "2011-05-09T16:30:18Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I’m getting the sense that you think that conspiring against the United States with a foreign enemy somehow gets you kid gloves. I think trials are a fundamental part of the legal system, not “kid gloves.” That’s why it’s in the Constitution. > [@](#): > > Apparently the all branches of the U.S. government that I can think of, the U.N., our NATO allies, and pretty much the international community has determined he is a terrorist. This has what bearing on the Constitution? > [@](#): > > Oh snaps, I hate to pull this one out, but the [PATRIOT ACT](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) defines domestic terrorism. [/quote] Same question. You might remember a lot of people had this problem with the USA PATRIOT Act when it was whipped up. ---
**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, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/95 "2011-05-09T16:30:45Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Where? The penalty for treason is death. We’re not talking about the penalty, we’re talking about the process. The Constitution doesn’t let the President say “Well, he committed treason, so I can kill him now.” In fact, it specifically forbids it. > [@CP](#): > > The SCOTUS has already ruled in the many instances where someone has waived their Fifth Amendment rights. They’ve never held that being called an “enemy combatant” by the President waives those rights. Never. > [@CP](#): > > Well, that would make you a couple of crayons short of a legal box there, since the President’s authority regarding war and intelligence matters is kept in check. Not to mention that huge Senate-confirmed cabinet. Do you really think the President can just put an unchecked hit out on someone? You’re the one advocating that the President can do that. I don’t think “Well, I have intelligence, and my team agrees, so I can” is enough oversight. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/96 "2011-05-09T16:33:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What army is he a member of? What Army was Uday Hussein a member of? ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/97 "2011-05-09T16:39:11Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Yep, and we have had the Supreme Court rule on that and create a system of rules and laws determining when deadly force can be used, who it can be used on, and where it can be used. It’s been a part of our judicial system for decades, going through the determinations on case by case basis, with judicial review, and jury trials. > > It’s a far cry from "we can kill him because he’s an enemy of the US because the President said so. Has this situation we’re presently dealing with ever been addressed by the SCOTUS? Without a SCOTUS decision I would argue that the President’s role as C-in-C and the congressional resolutions that were passed authorizing the use of military force against terrorist agents empower the President with the ability to decide when and where to use that military force. Franklin Roosevelt did not have to consult the constitution every time a commando raid was launched anywhere in the world against any enemy force. Roosevelt was given broad discretion in determining where to use our forces, who to use them against, and how to use them. ---
**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, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/98 "2011-05-09T16:40:45Z")
We’re not actually talking about Uday Hussein, so I don’t see how that’s relevant, but IIRC he was (at least on paper) a muqaddam (roughly equivalent to lieutenant colonel) in the Iraqi army. ---
**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, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/99 "2011-05-09T16:41:25Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Yep, and we have had the Supreme Court rule on that and create a system of rules and laws determining when deadly force can be used, who it can be used on, and where it can be used. It’s been a part of our judicial system for decades, going through the determinations on case by case basis, with judicial review, and jury trials. > > It’s a far cry from "we can kill him because he’s an enemy of the US because the President said so. Also, there typically is not _judicial review_ or jury trials for police taking out an active shooter. In most such cases it is only reviewed internally by the police department. If the police department decides that the shooting was not a justifiable use of force it will go to that jurisdiction’s prosecuting attorney where it will then be under our court system. However anyone who follows the news know that such a thing only happens in rare circumstances. ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/100 "2011-05-09T16:42:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We’re not actually talking about Uday Hussein, so I don’t see how that’s relevant, but IIRC he was (at least on paper) a muqaddam (roughly equivalent to lieutenant colonel) in the Iraqi army. Which had been disbanded. He was just a guy in a house when we surrounded it with 200 people and pumped it full of bullets. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120.md?page=6)