If you can murder him, why not arrest him? Make the people believe that legal justice is still what we do in America. Calling for the murder of "enemies of the state", "terrorists", & "spies" really opens Pandora's Box. The Judicial Branch needs to keep its seat at the table.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Assange Protected Under 1st Amendment?
- Thread starter Hoosier Gun Coat
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
If you can murder him, why not arrest him? Make the people believe that legal justice is still what we do in America. Calling for the murder of "enemies of the state", "terrorists", & "spies" really opens Pandora's Box. The Judicial Branch needs to keep its seat at the table.
In that case, I submit to you that your arguments about the harm done or not done are red herrings. You wouldn't kill the guy even if he were about to expose our agents. Why not just argue your actual point? It's like the pro gun control folks who argue about AWBs or "saturday night specials" when they really want to ban all guns. If your position is broader than the details it is deceptive to argue the details. Just sayin'.
I don't think that killing done against those with whom we are at war is murder. I define war pretty broadly, btw. I also don't care about their motivation. We are at war with an entity I personally call Islamofascism because I think that term is most descriptive. It's not a country, it's a loose philosophy whose adherents put aside their own philosophical differences to align against us.
There are others who while they may not be Islamofascists, find themselves sympathetic in thought or in action because they also see the U.S. as an enemy. If the actions of those who are our enemy but who have not taken up arms against us then aid the enemy who has taken up arms against us, then they put themselves at risk, regardless of the "purity" of their motivations.
It's like the "neutral" country who attempts to bring supplies to aid a country with whom we are at war. Their shipping is part of the war effort and therefore a legitimate target.
We can arrest him, but if we are at war we are under no obligation to do so. If he puts himself in the war by aiding our enemies, his life is forfeit. Why should we do anything at all for his benefit?
We have to learn again as a country how to be and have enemies.
When the schoolyard bully wants to take my lunch money, his nose is forfeit. And the guy who holds the bully's book bag while he assaults me just might find his nose bloody as well.
I think we should conduct ourselves in such a way that people think long and hard before positioning themselves as our enemy. Instead, we've made it easy to be our enemy. Which is the main reason we're a target.
I think the U.S. Constitution is the Government's obligation to arrest him and try him.
If the "suspect" is in a battlefield with a rifle, it makes the decision to kill easy.
If the "suspect" has shown no signs of violence, is living peacefully in a region that is not at war, has not been convicted of anything, has not had the opportunity to defend his case... then the call to murder him just doesn't make sense to me.
War, peace, why does it matter? Our constitution isn't supposed to be forfeit during times of "war". There was a time when I would have had a much different answer. But these days... this world we live is are downright scary - and its not the foreign nationals that scare me. We have bloody checkpoints popping up in the streets of America. I mean how much are we going to let them get away with "because we are at war"?
War has always been a great excuse to take away American liberties. Is this the reason we are perpetually fighting foreign wars?
The Constitution is a legal document which restricts how the government may treat its citizens. Is this guy a citizen? Is he even on our soil?
Aren't we taking a guy's civil liberty if we kill him on an Afghani mountain? It's war.
I don't get your premise, I really don't. Can we kill enemy spies? Do you really think the only act of war involves a rifle?
The fact that war has been used to take away liberties doesn't automatically make every act of war illegitimate. The police may beat someone illegally, but I still want them to enforce the law.
We are at war because we have sworn enemies who have lived up to their word and attacked us on several occasions. We didn't invent them, they really do exist.
Your hypothetical situation did not presume he was on foreign soil. I am sure a lot of the same people in this thread would like him assassinated even if he lived in Indiana. I'll address my thoughts on domestic and foreign soil.
I am a believer that the U.S. Constitution restricts how the Government may act, period. There are no qualifiers in the document that say the government may treat non-citizens with anything less than full American justice. They can't ban the free speech of Canadian tourists, they can't break up assemblies of Cuban refugees, they can't deprive Japanese descendants of their liberty without due process, and they can't tell Saudi Arabians who to worship. The Constitution does not represent positive rights for people, it represents negative powers of government.
Back on point, IMO, if the "suspect" is on U.S. soil, there is no question in my mind that strict due process should be followed. The republic demands it.
If he is in another country, I think all of the things I mentioned should be considered. Is the suspect violent? Is the suspect in a war-torn country, or someplace peaceful like France? Could the suspect reasonably be brought in for trial? Is black-ops James Bond assassination the only possible route? Furthermore, I think all this stuff should be explicitly amended into the constitution if this is what our security requires.
I don't think the U.S. Government should escalate things when they are totally unnecessary... Murdering him just because they feel justified in murdering. I say, if a guy can reasonably be arrested and brought into custody, why should we even entertain the idea of murdering him? Its a total escalation of a non-violent act.
You might feel that it sends a message to our enemies when the Feds murder terror suspects. Also consider what this kind of behavior conveys to concerned citizens of America.
Let me try and explain. We are entering a period of American history where any of us could be on some secret dissident list and being monitored by the government for our "fishy" comments and "unpatriotic" beliefs. Terms like "enemy of the state," "terrorist," and "spy" could start being used pretty loosely.
There is a real slippery slope anytime we go down the path of inventing "extra-constitutional" solutions for the Feds to use to our problems. Murdering people without trial being a huge one. They wiretap, they search, they seize, they radiate, they know no bounds. Its not out of the question that more domestic "radicals" surface and suddenly need to be dealt with. The question is, do we reign the government in by following the rulebook for avoiding tyranny? Or, do we froth at the mouth and demand that the government skip the "political correctness" of obeying the constitution, use government agents to kill all the dreaded radicals, spies, and thought criminals?
I agree with you somewhat here. I do think there are times when citizens on U.S. soil could be considered combatants, but I think those are very, very rare. And I do think the danger of abuse is huge.
I don't agree, however, that we owe the same protections to our foreign enemies. Our enemies are using our freedoms and our constraint as a weapon against us. If within our "principles" lie our means of destruction, our principles are at fault. Principle must first advance the noblest cause of all, which is self preservation. If our principle of freedom requires us to lose our lives or liberty so we take no chances with someone else's who is our sworn enemy, then a corrupt altruistic collectivist virus has infiltrated our concept of freedom.
We are in a different kind of war precisely becuase that's the only way the enemy can attack us. We can't be hurt if they take us on head on. So they chip away and use our own love of liberty against us. We can't allow this.
I read a great essay a few years ago that I wish I could find now that explains how the Israelis having more regard for the safety of Arab children than the Arabs themselves actually brought about more danger for both Arab AND Israeli children.
We can't allow our love of freedom to be the weapon that takes away that freedom.
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
One thing I learned while in the Army is what leadership SHOULD be and what it really IS. As a young private, I became my platoon leader's Bradley driver and soon drove for my first gunnery. At one stage of firing, I was supposed to sit in a defolade position. The gunner is supposed to identify a target and tell me to drive up. I drove up to the firing position and once the target was destroyed, I'd drive back to the defolade position. On one such engagement, the gunner fired, I drove back and another 25 mm round went down range.
We were immediately pulled off the range for a safety violation and the master gunner inspected the gun to make sure it wasn't a gun malfunction. It was determined that the gun worked properly and it was a negligent discharge. After that, I took the Bradley back to the motor pool for my gunner and I to clean up the brass. My gunner (an E-5 Sergeant) told me that what happened was as I was driving backwards, I took off to fast and caused him to hit the trigger. As a young private, I didn't know any better and thought I had screwed the pooch royally. My crew was the talk of the range and at chow, I was explaining what happened to some fellow Joes and what my gunner told me. Immediately, they said BS, the gunner should have had the gun on safe and that it wasn't my fault at all. Word of that went around and it got back to my platoon leader. He pulled me aside and told me that it wasn't my fault at all and as the track commander, it was his fault as he was in charge. My platoon sergeant later told me that he saw it from the range tower and that I was back and stopped before that round ever went down range.
The point of this is that the man responsible for it try deflecting the blame on me. The commander of the Bradley assumed responsibility as he was ultimately responsible for what happened in that vehicle at all times. In my time in the Army, I dealt with many more leaders like the gunner than the platoon leader. Military leaders are supposed to assume responsibility for those under their command.
Now to get to my point. We have many on here wanting to send in drones and missile strikes on someone for relaying information given to him but I see very little interest in blaming the chain of command of the soldier who took the information. Who is responsible for writing the sop's on information handling? Who is responsible for making sure things like this don't happen? IIRC, Hillary Clinton is the commander of the state department. Is she going to accept any responsibility for any of this? Na, let's not look at the root cause of the problem, let's drop some bunker busters on Assange's house and be done with it.
We were immediately pulled off the range for a safety violation and the master gunner inspected the gun to make sure it wasn't a gun malfunction. It was determined that the gun worked properly and it was a negligent discharge. After that, I took the Bradley back to the motor pool for my gunner and I to clean up the brass. My gunner (an E-5 Sergeant) told me that what happened was as I was driving backwards, I took off to fast and caused him to hit the trigger. As a young private, I didn't know any better and thought I had screwed the pooch royally. My crew was the talk of the range and at chow, I was explaining what happened to some fellow Joes and what my gunner told me. Immediately, they said BS, the gunner should have had the gun on safe and that it wasn't my fault at all. Word of that went around and it got back to my platoon leader. He pulled me aside and told me that it wasn't my fault at all and as the track commander, it was his fault as he was in charge. My platoon sergeant later told me that he saw it from the range tower and that I was back and stopped before that round ever went down range.
The point of this is that the man responsible for it try deflecting the blame on me. The commander of the Bradley assumed responsibility as he was ultimately responsible for what happened in that vehicle at all times. In my time in the Army, I dealt with many more leaders like the gunner than the platoon leader. Military leaders are supposed to assume responsibility for those under their command.
Now to get to my point. We have many on here wanting to send in drones and missile strikes on someone for relaying information given to him but I see very little interest in blaming the chain of command of the soldier who took the information. Who is responsible for writing the sop's on information handling? Who is responsible for making sure things like this don't happen? IIRC, Hillary Clinton is the commander of the state department. Is she going to accept any responsibility for any of this? Na, let's not look at the root cause of the problem, let's drop some bunker busters on Assange's house and be done with it.
