Thread Assassinating US Citizens

[fly]

I'm sure there's plenty on Youtube of him denouncing it and doing lord know what else. It doesn't have to be a formal trial and process to lose it. If I move it North Korea tomorrow and denounce the US and take up arms against it then my citizenship is gone.

There most certainly is a paper trail if I do it, or if the government does it.

 

[fly]

Ok so answer me this. A guy in Tampa is suspected of say killing a cop. Because of his actions and his associates he's considered armed and extremely dangerous. They find him and kill him. How is this any different. The guy died without a trial.

Already brought up in this thread. The cops can't murder him either dude. Come on, you know that.

 

[Floptical]

There most certainly is a paper trail if I do it, or if the government does it.

these do not require paper trail

formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States;
takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
is convicted of treason; or
performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)

 

[Floptical]

Also there is always a distinction of a crime when it relates to something on US soil and the person being on US vs. something in a zone tied to a current war or operation. When an area falls under that it goes under military rule (i.e. Military ROE, Military Tribunals, etc.) The standard laws at that point are back seat. It's the same as when the President deems a state a Disaster Area. When he does that it bypasses the standard BS laws.

 

[fly]

formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;

So if I do that, they go, "Zomg ok. TTYL broham!"

 

[my little brony]

not automatic, no. in this case it was warranted because he had every opportunity to turn himself in if he wished to stand trial and clear his name

Not only is it not automatic but it's rarely ever the punishment. And while I agree the penalty was warranted the problem remains that a trial was not held. It's a violation of the 6th amendment. We can argue whether or not we feel it's a justified violation of the law but it's a violation nonetheless.

 

[ZRH]

I asked for you earlier in this thread for clarification...

My understanding from a quick Google search was that under the US legal system, as long as you're given an opportunity to face your accusers (and decline), you can be tried in abesntia. No?

I posted earlier, maybe you should try putting it on 100pp to see everything

n the most general sense:

8 USC 1481

Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States

Also president has power to defend the United States by whatever means necessary. It's in a couple cases but the only one that I can remember is http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/DC/995214a.html The Supreme Court has held a number of times that it will not rule on the necessity or applicability of military action except on US soil.

Everyone seems to forget there is an actual real live war being fought against these people.

As for in absentia, in civil trials you default the case by not appearing. Criminal trials http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule43.htm the defendant MUST BE PRESENT.

Rule 43. Defendant's Presence
(a) When Required.

Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:

(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;

(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and

(3) sentencing.

 

[Floptical]

So if I do that, they go, "Zomg ok. TTYL broham!"

Depending on the circumstance. Example you live in Yemen and do it to the Yemen Consulate and then 3 weeks later try to go back for help they will tell you to get bent. You're distorting the situation here a bit. This would be a different story if the guy was here.

 

[fly]

Also there is always a distinction of a crime when it relates to something on US soil and the person being on US vs. something in a zone tied to a current war or operation. When an area falls under that it goes under military rule (i.e. Military ROE, Military Tribunals, etc.) The standard laws at that point are back seat. It's the same as when the President deems a state a Disaster Area. When he does that it bypasses the standard BS laws.

Are we at war with Yemen?

 

[my little brony]

As I'm sure it's been said many times already he's been given a chance to turn himself in if he wanted the due process of the US. Given he didn't and his continued actions I can see how they would justify this or even it fitting the grounds of the DOS's rules for losing your citizenship. Yes they are things you can do that will make you lose your citizenship. It's not a 100% forever no matter what you do coverage. And honestly speaking this is no different than someone in the US having the old "Dead or Alive" put on them.

indeed. relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_v._Terrazas

I'm unaware if the state dept officially declared him as having renounced his citizenship through his actions but really they only have to show that such a question was raised and answered for this to be a legal course of action.

 

[JAXvillain]

OK. I will spell this out word by word for you. I need you to read it twice, so that you understand.

1. A trial is held for the crimes he's committed.
2. He's found guilty of these crimes.
3. He's given a death sentence
4. He wears a Tomahawk missile for a hat.


1. A trial is held for the crimes he's committed.
2. He's found guilty of these crimes.
3. He's given a death sentence
4. He wears a Tomahawk missile for a hat.

Is that hard?

funny that I'm the idiot yet everyone in the thread appears to be pointing a finger at you, my friend

 

[my little brony]

No you fucking idiot, you have to stand trial for your crimes. Do you really not understand how this works?

watch it with the personal attacks, mr





edit: wait is this a namerape or is this really fly? fuck

 

[Floptical]

Are we at war with Yemen?

It's tied to Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom so items happening there against the US will be seen in that light.

 

[JAXvillain]

Also there is always a distinction of a crime when it relates to something on US soil and the person being on US vs. something in a zone tied to a current war or operation. When an area falls under that it goes under military rule (i.e. Military ROE, Military Tribunals, etc.) The standard laws at that point are back seat. It's the same as when the President deems a state a Disaster Area. When he does that it bypasses the standard BS laws.

TSRH. he was deemed an enemy combatant and therefore lost all rights to trial.

 

[my little brony]

goddamn flop already addressed everything I said. I can't keep up with you kids anymore

 

[ZRH]

Are we at war with Yemen?

Ever heard of Operation Enduring Freedom? We're at war with a stateless enemy present in most of Asia.

 

[Sarcasmo]

Are you sure he was a U.S. citizen? He wasnt even white.

 

[eileenbunny]

I'm sure when they found him someone made the call, risk commando lifes to attempt a capture or drop a bomb before he gets away again. Same call would be made for a bank robber holed up in a bank or something. When you are actively committing a crime and not surrendering for your fair trial, expect to get shot. Or bombed.

We drop bombs on bank robbers? I gotta watch the news more.

TSRH. he was deemed an enemy combatant and therefore lost all rights to trial.

I don't know the first thing about this really, so this is an honest question. Don't we have treaties and rules of engagement? Don't we have some kind of a moral conduct code in combat? Does any of that apply here?

And if it was a part of combat, why would our government set out a specific order to kill this one guy rather than just say something like "bomb the shit out of this area and kill all the bad people there, k thx"?

 

[Floptical]

We drop bombs on bank robbers? I gotta watch the news more.



I don't know the first thing about this really, so this is an honest question. Don't we have treaties and rules of engagement? Don't we have some kind of a moral conduct code in combat? Does any of that apply here?

And if it was a part of combat, why would our government set out a specific order to kill this one guy rather than just say something like "bomb the shit out of this area and kill all the bad people there, k thx"?

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

 

[Sarcasmo]

No U.S. court has ever weighed in on the question, because judges consider these sorts of issues exclusively matters for the president.

THEN WHAT THE HELL IS THE ISSUE HERE