Secret Panel can put Americans on kill list -- Modern McCarthyism?

[Guest bkelm18]

If this panel somehow decides to compromise their careers and livelihoods/freedom in order to assassinate an innocent American Citizen abroad in a big conspiracy to abuse power, I have a feeling it will be pretty obvious, like porno; you'll know what it is when you're looking at it.

Oh I doubt it would be that obvious. I'd even wager it's been done before in much more secret than Awlaki. You may think our gov't comprised of fools; I believe it is comprised of people who are foolish enough to do this.

[TMF]

In the age of internet, social media and 24 hour news, I dunno, nothing seems to be secret anymore. The only conspiracies that are capable of being successful are ones in which there is only one witting conspirator. The CIA can't even make it through a week with out one of their sources being burnt publically. I'm more inclined to believe that well intentioned liberals threaten our Constitution more than those who actively seek to undermine it because of delicious oil/power/women/thetans....

[TM01]

I have no problem with them taking Anwar al-Awlaki out...

Don't put yourself in that situation = no worries.

I agree with what Ron Paul said about this. He agreed that this guy probably wasnt the best of people, but he was a US citizen. Regardless of what he allegedly had done, he was protected by the 5th Amendment. No American citizen should be executed without due process. Despite what is going on over in the middle east, this country is NOT at war, so using that as a reason does not hold water. Yes the media loves to call it a war but with out proper declaration by Congress, there is no war.

If this is allowed to be a beginning, where does it end. read up on the growth of Nazi Germany and tell me if you dont see history repeating itself in regards to the government establishment acting with no regard for the rule of law.

[TM01]

I think it is easy to say that taking out terrorists is good and that if we don't do anything wrong we won't be on the list, but "wrong" is an ever evolving word. Political and social climates can change rapidly. What once was right can quickly become wrong. Various sectors of the gov't have already attempted to brand people as homegrown terrorists based on reasons that could be as simple as supporting the Tea Party. I know this sort of thing is nothing new, but that doesn't make it kosher.

Cheers! Once this kind of public precedent is set...who is next? DHS is gearing up to find terrorists behind every door. I agree that the trust placed on this government is amazingly unfounded. Misplaced trust is a very dangerous thing.

[G27]

Sure it's possible, but not probable. Most of the people on that panel aren't political appointees, they are people that have been in the intelligence/military business for a long time. These aren't the types that are going to make decisions lightly or out of pressure from some sinister, behind-the-scenes boogyman.

I think your generalization regarding 'these types' flies in the face of historical evidence.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

[sigmtnman]

In the age of internet, social media and 24 hour news, I dunno, nothing seems to be secret anymore. The only conspiracies that are capable of being successful are ones in which there is only one witting conspirator. The CIA can't even make it through a week with out one of their sources being burnt publically. I'm more inclined to believe that well intentioned liberals threaten our Constitution more than those who actively seek to undermine it because of delicious oil/power/women/thetans....

Surely you are not implying that I am of the liberal type because of my respect for the Constitution.

Are you?

[sigmtnman]

Throughout history there have been occasions where "officials" have conspired to break the law.

Watergate, The Tuskegee Syphilis expirement, Operation Northwoods (aka The Cuban Project), The Iran-Contra Affair, the Nayirah testimony

While not US related, everyone has heard of the Reichstag Fire.

By no means does this imply that every action is nefarious, but it should cause Citizens to be ever vigilant to the possibility of corruption in every facet of society.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It all boils down to this. If you are an American citizen and you are not allowed your day in court,

to defend your innocence, while the state tries to prove their case, the Constitution is another

historical document that has been destroyed. If you love your liberty, the few that remain, you

will fight to keep it the historical document intact. If that means I am a terrorist by the "secret

panel" then so be it!

All those that think it's okay to kill an American without due process are giving up their fundamental

rights so they can go about their lives another day or two. that's exactly like our Congress "kicking

the can" on our federal deficit. It will keep on getting worse until it's unbearable.

Rationalize your rights away!

[mikegideon]

Interesting... Holder was against it.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Why President Barack Obama Is Right to Kill U.S. Citizens - The Daily Beast

[TMF]

Surely you are not implying that I am of the liberal type because of my respect for the Constitution.

Are you?

No, not at all. I was making reference to my opinion that this administration isn't one of sinister plots (outside of the normal left-wing agendas) but rather the actions of well intentioned liberals.

Trust me, I don't think you're a liberal.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Interesting... Holder was against it.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Why President Barack Obama Is Right to Kill U.S. Citizens - The Daily Beast

As much as I despise Holder, I would still like to think this is the case, but coming from the Daily

Beast, just makes it cover for Holder to keep his job due to his other shenanigans which should

get him thrown under the bus. It's just me, but I think the Daily Beast is no better than HuffPo

for news.

The President has opened so many cans of worms, it's hard to discern any truthful statements

from just about anywhere. Yes, even Fox News has blundered, also.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The trouble with most liberals, nowadays, is they first, don't understand right from wrong,

and secondly, don't respect the Constitution or anyone who does. Then you add the political

class, which should all be taken out and tarred and feathered for this continual mess they create

and make us pay for. A "citizen legislature" is what the founders desired.

Look what we have now.

The political class includes both parties and quite a few communists.

[sigmtnman]

No, not at all. I was making reference to my opinion that this administration isn't one of sinister plots (outside of the normal left-wing agendas) but rather the actions of well intentioned liberals.

Trust me, I don't think you're a liberal.

Thank you for the clarification. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[strickj]

I agree with what Ron Paul said about this. He agreed that this guy probably wasnt the best of people, but he was a US citizen. Regardless of what he allegedly had done, he was protected by the 5th Amendment. No American citizen should be executed without due process. Despite what is going on over in the middle east, this country is NOT at war, so using that as a reason does not hold water. Yes the media loves to call it a war but with out proper declaration by Congress, there is no war.

If this is allowed to be a beginning, where does it end. read up on the growth of Nazi Germany and tell me if you dont see history repeating itself in regards to the government establishment acting with no regard for the rule of law.

Incorrect. We are at war.

A Declaration of War is simply a form of congressional approval to take a balls to the wall, no holds barred approach. That is why only a few have ever been declared.

The only thing need for "war" is a congressional approval or an attack on the US for the POTUS to authorize.

[sigmtnman]

Incorrect. We are at war.

A Declaration of War is simply a form of congressional approval to take a balls to the wall, no holds barred approach. That is why only a few have ever been declared.

The only thing need for "war" is a congressional approval or an attack on the US for the POTUS to authorize.

Incorrect.

Folks who feel this way really should read and work to understand the entire Constitution of the United States.

[wjh2657]

The COTUS does not address the conduct of war. It was never intended at the time of the COTUS signing that the U.S. would ever again go to war. The whole idea of a standing army and a foreign war was an anathema to the founding fathers. The COTUS was meant for the U.S. government to go about conducting the business of government within the United States. Before you launch into a Tea Party Tirade about reading the Constitution, they don'treally read it by the way, go to www.walthofman.com and read it and all of the papers of the founders there. To understand the COTUS, you really need to read The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist too.

Once we enter a war situation many of the provisions of the Constitution are suspended and always have been, starting as early as the War of 1812. The Patriot Act has many violations of the Constitution in it, but has been upheld as legal and binding. (And still in effect!)

As far as these committees are concerned, every nation of any size on this earth has an organization that assassinates foreigners and sometimes their own citizens and a political body that decides who and where.

Edited October 7, 2011 by wjh2657

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What do you mean by Tea Party tirade? My views were formed a long time before

this Tea Party came into being, and I'll bet you the Tea Party members would dare

say the same.

So, by the fact that they exist makes it right and just? To my knowledge most of the

other countries don't afford its citizens and/or subjects with the freedoms set forth

in our Constitution. Just because something exists doesn't make it right.

It used to be that an American was a unique status compared to the rest of the countries.

Must not be so, any more.

I do like your page, wjh. That's a keeper!

[mikegideon]

You execute somebody with a needle and a priest. Advanced weapons are for something else.

[sigmtnman]

The COTUS does not address the conduct of war. It was never intended at the time of the COTUS signing that the U.S. would ever again go to war. The whole idea of a standing army and a foreign war was an anathema to the founding fathers. The COTUS was meant for the U.S. government to go about conducting the business of government within the United States. Before you launch into a Tea Party Tirade about reading the Constitution, they don'treally read it by the way, go to www.walthofman.com and read it and all of the papers of the founders there. To understand the COTUS, you really need to read The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist too.

Once we enter a war situation many of the provisions of the Constitution are suspended and always have been, starting as early as the War of 1812. The Patriot Act has many violations of the Constitution in it, but has been upheld as legal and binding. (And still in effect!)

As far as these committees are concerned, every nation of any size on this earth has an organization that assassinates foreigners and sometimes their own citizens and a political body that decides who and where.

That is why a Declaration of War is needed. To quell the confusion.

Our Founding Fathers were men ahead of their time and understood exactly where it would end up.

Tyranny.

They fought for for thier POSTERITY. That would be us.

Calling the Constitution of the United States of America a COTUS is disrespectful to boot.

There is nothing new under the sun. The only new history is that which you have not learned.

Edited October 7, 2011 by sigmtnman

[mikegideon]

That is why a Declaration of War is needed. To quell the confusion.

Not everybody is confused

[Guest adamoxtwo]

I think it's funny that most people can read our Constitution and still not understand it. Someone said it though already...You need to read not only the Constitution, but the letters and memo's that lead to up to the final version. History has not changed, we (and when I say we I mean the Government) just justify what we read in order to achieve out objectives.

[sigmtnman]

Not everybody is confused

You are correct.

Perception, is reality.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think it's funny that most people can read our Constitution and still not understand it. Someone said it though already...You need to read not only the Constitution, but the letters and memo's that lead to up to the final version. History has not changed, we (and when I say we I mean the Government) just justify what we read in order to achieve out objectives.

I think it's funny, too. You don't have to read the Federalist papers, or any of the other writings

to understand the Constitution. It was written for us plain folks. Crafty politicians/lawyers/idealists

have been trying to rape it ever since. As far as I'm concerned, it is the gold dollar sign in Galt's

Gulch.

When you read the other writings, you get the depth the founders put into the document, but it

doesn't change anything.

[strickj]

Incorrect.

Folks who feel this way really should read and work to understand the entire Constitution of the United States.

Read it? How about I quote it and let you read it instead.

Article 1 Section 8:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

"To declare war" as stated in the Constitution is not the same thing as " Declaration of War". A DoW is simply a formal document concerning the type of war.

From Wiki:

In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war". However neither the U.S. Constitution nor the law stipulate what format a declaration of war must take. War declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by the President as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. The last time Congress passed a bill with the title "Declaration of War" was in 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Romania.[citation needed] Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force" as in the case against Iraq in 2003.

And in case you're wondering what war powers POTUS has under the Constitution:

Article 2 Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

[TM01]

Incorrect.

Folks who feel this way really should read and work to understand the entire Constitution of the United States.

Agreed. Congress is and only has been the body of government that can declare war. The reason that this was set in place was to prevent ONE man from being able to start wars.