Assassinations. Now with 100% less Due-Process!

Now the President of the United States may waive your first, fifth and sixth amendment rights, and may have you killed without a shred of due process. It has been talked about before in this adminstration, but now they have succeeded. I do not think this is a good thing. Thoughts?

Article here. There is an embedded video too that is good on the article.

Thank you, Whiteknife. Hating Islamic fundamentalists as much as I do, still, I fear US killer robot assassins much, much more.

Just as an FYI, this is a super-fighty way to frame this discussion. Hot topic political threads need to be on their best behavior these days because we're tired of putting out flamewars. Not a specific warning to anybody just yet, just a reminder. Thanks.

Warning taken.

It certainly is a slippery slope the administration is standing on. Looking at this from a legal/courtroom drama standpoint, I think there is going to be a major review of what constitutes an 'enemy combatant' and whether U.S. citizens that the president classifies as terrorists in the 'war on terror' lose any of their traditional protections under the constitution.

A. Does this being conducted overseas and not on U.S. soil have any bearing?

B. If this person had made a clear renunciation of their U.S. citizenship, and I don't know if this guy ever did (verbal or written), would that affect this situation?

This is going to be a thorny legal and political issue. We live in interesting times my friends...

Good gaming to all,

DJF

Agreed, Gary. I do not mean this as a left vs right thing. I do not think that it is a good policy for anyone no matter what your political views. However, I do not think that many people know this has happened and wanted to bring it to light.

I'm probably less concerned about this than I should be.
When Osama was taken out, that's how I expected that to go down.
Our boys busting into whatever cave\house\boat he was on and gittin' er done.
I'm not seeing this any different, really. He was a member of Al Qaeda, and was taken out like one. Perhaps if he was more worried about his American citizenship, our military would have been also...

It certainly is a slippery slope the administration is standing on. Looking at this from a legal/courtroom drama standpoint, I think there is going to be a major review of what constitutes an 'enemy combatant' and whether U.S. citizens that the president classifies as terrorists in the 'war on terror' lose any of their traditional protections under the constitution.

A. Does this being conducted overseas and not on U.S. soil have any bearing?

B. If this person had made a clear renunciation of their U.S. citizenship, and I don't know if this guy ever did (verbal or written), would that affect this situation?

This is going to be a thorny legal and political issue. We live in interesting times my friends...

Good gaming to all,

DJF

A) I really do not know.

Edit- The biggest problem I see here is "who decides that you are a terrorist?" Without the court system, literally one man can decide whether you live or die. I do not think that is good way to run a republlic.

I fear US killer robot assassins much, much more.

I, for one, welcome our killer robot assassin overlords, and would like to offer up certain traitors located here on the Paizo boards as a symbol of my goodwill and loyalty.

So your enema list is now a list of traitors.?

So your enema list is now a list of traitors.?

Wait...I have an enema list? I'm disturbed by this development.

I was thinking I would identify the traitors on a more democratic basis - whoever doesn't pay me $100, cash, within 24 hours of the robot killer assassin overlords arrival will be identified by me as a traitor.

So your enema list is now a list of traitors.?

Talk about disturbing typos.

Edit. Ninja'd. Now I'll have to actually make this post on topic to justify it's existence. Let's see:

I don't really see the issue with this specifically. We are responding to Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations in a military fashion. Due process of law is not applied on the battlefield. It does not matter whether the target is an American citizen or not. How could it? Should we attack Al-Queda targets, but refrain if an American citizen is present?

Once the decision was made to deal with the threat of terrorism as if it were a war, this was inevitable.

I was opposed to that from the beginning. I believe that responding to terrorism as an international law enforcement problem is far more effective and causes less blowback than the military approach.

I'm also far more concerned with the damage and loss when the drones are used on bad intelligence and kill civilians than when they do hit their targets.

Crimson Jester wrote:

So your enema list is now a list of traitors.?

Talk about disturbing typos.

Who said that was a typo?

thejeff wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

So your enema list is now a list of traitors.?

Talk about disturbing typos.

Who said that was a typo?

Ok, that's it -- Sebastian! I want off this list!

Jess Door wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

So your enema list is now a list of traitors.?

Talk about disturbing typos.

Who said that was a typo?

Ok, that's it -- Sebastian! I want off this list!

+1,000,000

When I saw this thread, I though that Paizo had errata'd the assassin's death attack ability. Ha ha, oh well.

If it's not an assassination, I don't know what else it could be called that wouldn't sound like mealy-mouthed corporate speak. Targeted killing? That's just assassination with a patriotic bow pasted on its head.

And it's a clear violation of Due Process, and both the Fifth and First amendments.

Not happy with this at all.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I fear US killer robot assassins much, much more.

I, for one, welcome our killer robot assassin overlords, and would like to offer up certain traitors located here on the Paizo boards as a symbol of my goodwill and loyalty.

[Checks Sebastian's list. Wipes sweat from forehead. Sighs in relief.]

Sebastian wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I fear US killer robot assassins much, much more.

I, for one, welcome our killer robot assassin overlords, and would like to offer up certain traitors located here on the Paizo boards as a symbol of my goodwill and loyalty.

[Checks Sebastian's list. Wipes sweat from forehead. Sighs in relief.]

Hey Comrade how have you been? ... Also how come you are not at the cash register? Spending too much time in Lanfear's little hidey hole?

Hey Comrade how have you been? ... Also how come you are not at the cash register? Spending too much time in Lanfear's little hidey hole?

Right now, I'm in fear for my life, peeking through the curtains, on the lookout for Sebastian's robot army.

As for your packie, I QUIT!!! Make me work in a loincloth (grumble, grumble, grumble)...

He was the one in control. He could have returned to the US to face his charges and gone to trial to get his due process, or any other international court. I don't see any difference between that and when a wanted man that's an American holes himself up in a house and gets shot by the police because he refuses to surrender.

He was the one in control. He could have returned to the US to face his charges and gone to trial to get his due process, or any other international court. I don't see any difference between that and when a wanted man that's an American holes himself up in a house and gets shot by the police because he refuses to surrender.

agreed.

Gruumash . wrote:

Hey Comrade how have you been? ... Also how come you are not at the cash register? Spending too much time in Lanfear's little hidey hole?

Right now, I'm in fear for my life, peeking through the curtains, on the lookout for Sebastian's robot army.

As for your packie, I QUIT!!! Make me work in a loincloth (grumble, grumble, grumble)...

You can't quit. If you quit I will tell Sebastion and his robot army where to find you and give them money to incourage them to do so right away.

Dear Mr. Kryzbyn,

This is to inform you that you have been placed on an Eradicate-on-Sight list by the National Assembly of Galt for your role in the Church of Asmodeus. We haven't indicted you, we haven't provided any evidence for our accusations and many of our own experts doubt your actual role in said Church, but it doesn't matter, we're going to get you anyway. Also, we refuse to provide you or anybody else with any further information because it would violate national security.

Have a nice day,
Doodlebug Anklebiter,
Recording Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Assembly of Galt

---

Now, maybe if you received such a letter you would hasten to Isarn to turn yourself in, but, I daresay, I surely wouldn't.

Kryzbyn wrote:

He was the one in control. He could have returned to the US to face his charges and gone to trial to get his due process, or any other international court. I don't see any difference between that and when a wanted man that's an American holes himself up in a house and gets shot by the police because he refuses to surrender.

agreed.

Disagree!

The whole point of something like Waco or any of the other places was to arrest the individual in question, but things got out of control and it leads to death.

These people were targeted for assassination. That's a whole different cup of tea.

We have a declared fight (at a minimum) with Al Qaeda specifically -- (indeed explicitly) of which he was a member. Much like terrorist don't mind targeting civilians that seem to side with the USA without regard to citizenship or military standing we are specifically targeting members of their organization.

In a way it all reminds me of the USA Civil War when this guy is considered:

The president declared (and got Congress to back) that the states couldn't secede from the Union, which means that the people in those states were still considered USA civilians to the USA government. The USA government then had those that said otherwise and resisted it killed -- yes in battle but still without trial, judge or jury.

Each confederate soldier was a USA citizen at the time of his death and was therefore killed without trial. Indeed confederate "USA" civilians were killed too during the battles.

The topic isn't just "is this guy a USA citizen" but also "who's banner is this guy flying."

Dear Mr. Kryzbyn,

This is to inform you that you have been placed on an Eradicate-on-Sight list by the National Assembly of Galt for your role in the Church of Asmodeus. We haven't indicted you, we haven't provided any evidence for our accusations and many of our own experts doubt your actual role in said Church, but it doesn't matter, we're going to get you anyway. Also, we refuse to provide you or anybody else with any further information because it would violate national security.

Have a nice day,
Doodlebug Anklebiter,
Recording Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Assembly of Galt

---

Now, maybe if you received such a letter you would hasten to Isarn to turn yourself in, but, I daresay, I surely wouldn't.

If I so much as caught a hint on the internet or TV that people thought I was seditionist or a terrorist trying to gun for Americans, I would run to the nearest police station and turn myself in to clear my name.

Unless of course everything they said was true, then I'd make them come get me.

This guy made them come get him.

We have a declared fight (at a minimum) with Al Qaeda specifically -- (indeed explicitly) of which he was a member. Much like terrorist don't mind targeting civilians that seem to side with the USA without regard to citizenship or military standing we are specifically targeting members of their organization.

In a way it all reminds me of the USA Civil War when this guy is considered:

The president declared (and got Congress to back) that the states couldn't secede from the Union, which means that the people in those states were still considered USA civilians to the USA government. The USA government then had those that said otherwise and resisted it killed -- yes in battle but still without trial, judge or jury.

Each confederate soldier was a USA citizen at the time of his death and was therefore killed without trial. Indeed confederate "USA" civilians were killed too during the battles.

The topic isn't just "is this guy a USA citizen" but also "who's banner is this guy flying."

Even traitors get trials.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Dear Mr. Kryzbyn,

This is to inform you that you have been placed on an Eradicate-on-Sight list by the National Assembly of Galt for your role in the Church of Asmodeus. We haven't indicted you, we haven't provided any evidence for our accusations and many of our own experts doubt your actual role in said Church, but it doesn't matter, we're going to get you anyway. Also, we refuse to provide you or anybody else with any further information because it would violate national security.

Have a nice day,
Doodlebug Anklebiter,
Recording Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Assembly of Galt

---

Now, maybe if you received such a letter you would hasten to Isarn to turn yourself in, but, I daresay, I surely wouldn't.

If I so much as caught a hint on the internet or TV that people thought I was seditionist or a terrorist trying to gun for Americans, I would run to the nearest police station and turn myself in to clear my name.

Unless of course everything they said was true, then I'd make them come get me.

This guy made them come get him.

And if you thought they were just going to shoot you? Or torture you?

Even traitors get trials.

Except those that are dead right? Or those that we simply don't charge with anything after the war, say the ringleaders that we simply did nothing to other than say, "welcome home."

Studpuffin wrote:

Even traitors get trials.

Except those that are dead right? Or those that we simply don't charge with anything after the war, say the ringleaders that we simply did nothing to other than say, "welcome home."

Dead men don't get trials, true. The alive ones don't get trials either.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Dear Mr. Kryzbyn,

This is to inform you that you have been placed on an Eradicate-on-Sight list by the National Assembly of Galt for your role in the Church of Asmodeus. We haven't indicted you, we haven't provided any evidence for our accusations and many of our own experts doubt your actual role in said Church, but it doesn't matter, we're going to get you anyway. Also, we refuse to provide you or anybody else with any further information because it would violate national security.

Have a nice day,
Doodlebug Anklebiter,
Recording Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Assembly of Galt

---

Now, maybe if you received such a letter you would hasten to Isarn to turn yourself in, but, I daresay, I surely wouldn't.

If I so much as caught a hint on the internet or TV that people thought I was seditionist or a terrorist trying to gun for Americans, I would run to the nearest police station and turn myself in to clear my name.

Unless of course everything they said was true, then I'd make them come get me.

This guy made them come get him.

And if you thought they were just going to shoot you? Or torture you?

Then I'd be a bit paranoid, I suppose. But I'm not, so I'd drive down to the police station or state trooper post.

Studpuffin wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Dear Mr. Kryzbyn,

This is to inform you that you have been placed on an Eradicate-on-Sight list by the National Assembly of Galt for your role in the Church of Asmodeus. We haven't indicted you, we haven't provided any evidence for our accusations and many of our own experts doubt your actual role in said Church, but it doesn't matter, we're going to get you anyway. Also, we refuse to provide you or anybody else with any further information because it would violate national security.

Have a nice day,
Doodlebug Anklebiter,
Recording Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Assembly of Galt

---

Now, maybe if you received such a letter you would hasten to Isarn to turn yourself in, but, I daresay, I surely wouldn't.

If I so much as caught a hint on the internet or TV that people thought I was seditionist or a terrorist trying to gun for Americans, I would run to the nearest police station and turn myself in to clear my name.

Unless of course everything they said was true, then I'd make them come get me.

This guy made them come get him.

And if you thought they were just going to shoot you? Or torture you?

Then I'd be a bit paranoid, I suppose. But I'm not, so I'd drive down to the police station or state trooper post.

But a guy who suspects he's not going to get a trial, like so many of the guys in guantanamo got, should just turn himself in? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.

Just to clarify, my position is not that it's wrong to assassinate enemies of the state... but revoke their citizenship first at least!

The argument I'm hearing is, that he was an American, and he deserved due process. He denied himself due process by not turning himself in.
If the situation he put himself in, with the people he chose to associate with, meant he would likely catch a bullet if he tried, that's on him.

The argument I'm hearing is, that he was an American, and he deserved due process. He denied himself due process by not turning himself in.

If the situation he put himself in, with the people he chose to associate with, meant he would likely catch a bullet if he tried, that's on him.

Is it? Or is it on us to be able to provide a trial for someone who has no evidence against him besides the accusations of the state before they're executed? I think it's on us.

Just to clarify, my position is not that it's wrong to assassinate enemies of the state... but revoke their citizenship first at least!

I can kind of understand that position -- but at the same time I'm not fully liking it either.

The problem is the 'crime' in this case is simple memberships in Al Qaeda -- that is currently enough by law to get you shot by the USA (though we have shown some restraint in this in other areas such as in Iraq, or those we take actual prisoner on battlefields). If you revoke his citizenship then he's kind of in the area of not being controlled by USA law.

EDIT: Different thoughts on it:

I guess the real 'take home lesson' of this all is if you are going to claim to be an enemy and act like an enemy you are honestly better off picking up a gun and fighting on the front line then you are to run around hiding while making verbal 'potshots' from where you are trying to hide.

After all the ones that are actually trying to physically kill our troops overseas and get capture seem to have a better survival rate than those that simply try and cheer lead from places of safety.

Kryzbyn wrote:

The argument I'm hearing is, that he was an American, and he deserved due process. He denied himself due process by not turning himself in.

If the situation he put himself in, with the people he chose to associate with, meant he would likely catch a bullet if he tried, that's on him.

Is it? Or is it on us to be able to provide a trial for someone who has no evidence against him besides the accusations of the state before they're executed? I think it's on us.

That can be said of anyone that is kill by the government of the USA though, "you don't have evidence, you simply shot him while saying he was trying to kill you -- where is the proof?"

Studpuffin wrote:

Just to clarify, my position is not that it's wrong to assassinate enemies of the state... but revoke their citizenship first at least!

I can kind of understand that position -- but at the same time I'm not fully liking it either.

The problem is the 'crime' in this case is simple memberships in Al Qaeda -- that is currently enough by law to get you shot by the USA (though we have shown some restraint in this in other areas such as in Iraq, or those we take actual prisoner on battlefields). If you revoke his citizenship then he's kind of in the area of not being controlled by USA law.

EDIT: Different thoughts on it:

I guess the real 'take home lesson' of this all is if you are going to claim to be an enemy and act like an enemy you are honestly better off picking up a gun and fighting on the front line then you are to run around hiding while making verbal 'potshots' from where you are trying to hide.

After all the ones that are actually trying to physically kill our troops overseas and get capture seem to have a better survival rate than those that simply try and cheer lead from places of safety.

I still have a big issue with the lack of evidence. Apparently you only need suspicion to be assassinated. What happens when they kill an innocent person? What does the state do then? What can we as Americans expect? This sets a dangerous precedence.

Studpuffin wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

The argument I'm hearing is, that he was an American, and he deserved due process. He denied himself due process by not turning himself in.

If the situation he put himself in, with the people he chose to associate with, meant he would likely catch a bullet if he tried, that's on him.

Is it? Or is it on us to be able to provide a trial for someone who has no evidence against him besides the accusations of the state before they're executed? I think it's on us.

That can be said of anyone that is kill by the government of the USA though, "you don't have evidence, you simply shot him while saying he was trying to kill you -- where is the proof?"

Killing someone in a designated combat zone, versus killing them anywhere else. That is a pretty significant difference.

I disagree.

Say Joe Bob American was minding his own business. Some police show up at his house, not even to arrest him, but just to ask questions. He's paranoid, and barracades himself in his house and says he's got weapons. More police come, SWAT is called, and they'll try to talk him out, or they will ahve to go in and get him becasue he's become a danger to others.
Say now he's still innocent, but shot one of the policemen. They will get snipers.

Say now Joe Bob, he's not innocent, and has an online magazine where he brags about setting up a bomb in a supermarket, trying to blow up an airliner and tries to get others to do the same. He's known to associate with people that murder on a whim, and will blow up your mom's house if you make yourself a target.

Joe Bob is still an American, but now he's put himself in a situation where it's not worth risking the lives of the people you'd send in to get him. You get the snipers.

If he's in another country, that increases the difficulty ten fold. You put a hellfire missile on a drone.

I still have a big issue with the lack of evidence. Apparently you only need suspicion to be assassinated. What happens when they kill an innocent person? What does the state do then? What can we as Americans expect? This sets a dangerous precedence.

The question is what is the crime? Answer being on the other team of a war.

So how would you go about 'proving' that? Realizing that just because someone is on the other side during a war doesn't make them a combatant.

After all during WW 2 we killed plenty of non-combatants in areas that weren't 'designated battle grounds' (a rather laughable term honestly studpuffin -- not that you are laughable or that I don't understand your general idea... but the concept of a 'designated battleground' is at minimum... purposefully ignorant in my opinion).

The problem is this isn't simply a 'criminal case' this is a military war. What do you do in a war? Try to take out the leadership of the enemy -- even if that leadership isn't directly a combatant.

Killing someone in a designated combat zone, versus killing them anywhere else. That is a pretty significant difference.

Please double check the parameters and designations of the current war -- reviewing them will probably chill you more (a chill I don't disagree with necessarily) as you realize just how much room has been given to the presidents in regard to the 'war on terror'.

Congress dropped the ball -- not surprising that anyone that questioned the legislation at the time had their patriotism questioned as well as their commitment to the USA -- if I recall the phrase at the time was, "if you aren't with us, you're against us!"

I still have a big issue with the lack of evidence. Apparently you only need suspicion to be assassinated. What happens when they kill an innocent person? What does the state do then? What can we as Americans expect? This sets a dangerous precedence.

The precedent was set a long time ago. We kill lots of innocent people with drone strikes. Since they're not Americans, they're called collateral damage and might get an official apology if it's particularly egregious.

We are prosecuting the War on Terror as a War, whether it's declared or not. Bad s%*$ happens in war. That's why you should try to avoid it.

I'd rather let the president order the assassination of key enemy figures, even if a few innocents are killed than invade the countries they're hiding leading to the deaths of 10s or 100s of thousands in the following chaos.

Of course, I'd rather deal with terrorism as an international law enforcement problem rather than a military one, but that's a minority opinion.

Strange how this is a war though it has not be declared nor any clear objectives set. Congress has not declared war since WWII, we have done many police actions and/or our executive branch has abused the war powers act of the 70s, but not offical wars since then. Little by little we have allowed our government to slowly take away our liberty for a presumed benefit of security.

"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve niether and will lose both." Ben Franklin.

Stop the maddness Ron Paul 2012.

If we have tried no other options than a hellfire missile, even for an enemy then we are no better than the ones we are fighting. We just have better toys. The end does not justify the means.

If on the other hand we have tried, many times, to resolve the conflict using other means, then and only then, when the enemy is a danger and hazard to ourselves or others, then we are justified in defending ourselves.

While I am not privy to all the information on these two people, the little I do know does not show that these criteria were met. There may well be information I do not have available to me, and I expect everyone else on theses boards as to a good justification. Does not mean that there is none. It is that the government in general has for several administrations has caused a large lack of any sort of trust. Some of it justified, some of it left over from previous administrations.

Studpuffin wrote:

Killing someone in a designated combat zone, versus killing them anywhere else. That is a pretty significant difference.

Please double check the parameters and designations of the current war -- reviewing them will probably chill you more (a chill I don't disagree with necessarily) as you realize just how much room has been given to the presidents in regard to the 'war on terror'.

Congress dropped the ball -- not surprising that anyone that questioned the legislation at the time had their patriotism questioned as well as their commitment to the USA -- if I recall the phrase at the time was, "if you aren't with us, you're against us!"

Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms though. There is a lot of things that I disagree with, things that shouldn't have ever happened but have. You're right, Congress did drop the ball. That upset me nearly as much as this has.

However, we're not even supposed to be in war in Yemen either. There we are, though.

Studpuffin wrote:

I still have a big issue with the lack of evidence. Apparently you only need suspicion to be assassinated. What happens when they kill an innocent person? What does the state do then? What can we as Americans expect? This sets a dangerous precedence.

The precedent was set a long time ago. We kill lots of innocent people with drone strikes. Since they're not Americans, they're called collateral damage and might get an official apology if it's particularly egregious.

We are prosecuting the War on Terror as a War, whether it's declared or not. Bad s&@* happens in war. That's why you should try to avoid it.

I'd rather let the president order the assassination of key enemy figures, even if a few innocents are killed than invade the countries they're hiding leading to the deaths of 10s or 100s of thousands in the following chaos.

Of course, I'd rather deal with terrorism as an international law enforcement problem rather than a military one, but that's a minority opinion.

Bullplop. There was no evidence presented against the man. That is not collateral damage. That is murder.

Strange how this is a war though it has not be declared nor any clear objectives set. Congress has not declared war since WWII, we have done many police actions and/or our executive branch has abused the war powers act of the 70s, but not offical wars since then. Little by little we have allowed our government to slowly take away our liberty for a presumed benefit of security.

"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve niether and will lose both." Ben Franklin.

Stop the maddness Ron Paul 2012.

Yes Ron Paul -- same guy that's not stopped the madness before will of course stop it now.

He is just another hack that's been there as long as any of the others.

I'm not saying this is a great idea -- and I was against the methods that have been given to achieve the supposed desired end -- however it is how we have arrived where we are -- to feign ignorance of how we got here is to invite ourselves to do it again, and to prove ourselves unworthy of self governance.

Nimon wrote:

Strange how this is a war though it has not be declared nor any clear objectives set. Congress has not declared war since WWII, we have done many police actions and/or our executive branch has abused the war powers act of the 70s, but not offical wars since then. Little by little we have allowed our government to slowly take away our liberty for a presumed benefit of security.

"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve niether and will lose both." Ben Franklin.

Stop the maddness Ron Paul 2012.

Yes Ron Paul -- same guy that's not stopped the madness before will of course stop it now.

He is just another hack that's been there as long as any of the others.

I'm not saying this is a great idea -- and I was against the methods that have been given to achieve the supposed desired end -- however it is how we have arrived where we are -- to feign ignorance of how we got here is to invite ourselves to do it again, and to prove ourselves unworthy of self governance.

I couldn't have said it better myself!