Now consider this recent case - U.S. drone killing of American al-Awlaki prompts legal, moral debate
In summary: our government executed a hit on a US citizen who it deemed to be a threat to our security. Instead of arresting this individual, bringing him to court and going through a trial, we decided to kill him. (Of course it is much easier and presents no direct threat to our law enforcement to launch a drone missile strike on an individual rather than arresting him and bringing him back to the US to stand trial.)
Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul stated,
"If the American people accept this blindly and casually, that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it's sad," Paul told reporters after a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, Friday.
But U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said,
"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country. The president was acting entirely within his rights and I fully support the president," King said.
Where do you stand on this?
I think this whole idea has good intentions but is not a good idea. They said he was deemed a threat, so what is considered a threat? I think now its not so bad but over time, the criteria needed to be considered a threat will be less and less. I don't like the fact that the govt. can just pick and choose who they want to kill and when.
ReplyDeleteI think that since the President has that type of position, he obviously isn't stupid. So, he must have had a good reason for his actions and it was best for our country. If a person is in direct threat against the country, I believe that it is in our best interest to wipe out this threat before something of national security happens again(9/11). So, if we take care of something that the President believes is a threat then we will have less to deal with in the future.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has a right to a fair trial. It's in our constitution, even if they aren't citizens its supposed to be what we believe as Americans. Our government is sickening! It just makes me so mad.
ReplyDeleteWe all have the right for a fair trial. I don't think we should have the death plenty because a lot of people are killed who are have not committed a crime that needs the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteYeah the government should have the right to kill those who it deems a threat, all enemies of the U.S. should be brought down.
ReplyDeleteI think he still should have had his trail (since it's his right), but they could at least have sent SWAT to ︻┳═一 his @$$.
ReplyDeleteAnd by "︻┳═一 his @$$", I mean violently arrest him.
ReplyDeleteA terrorist is a terrorist, and if it takes one life to save many then go right ahead. The fact that it was also perfectly legal just makes it less of an argument.
ReplyDeleteI believe it was for the best for them to do this. What if eh went into hiding for 10 years, after a failed arrest? 20? 30? We needed to take him out, before he did anything to us. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.
ReplyDelete-Mike Smith Hour 7
I think we have to take into consideration what the person had done. Not everything is worth the dead penalty. But also we have to pay for them to be in jail, and feed them and if we killed them I guess that would be saving us money? But I dont think its the right to kill people.
ReplyDeletei believe that we have to put in consideration what the crime was, but they could pay for that crime in jail time, but i dont believe we should kill people,
ReplyDeleteYeah the government should have the right to kill those who it deems a threat, all enemies of the U.S. should be brought down. so this is just what i think though.
ReplyDeleteI think it's wrong. We the people have no proof that this man was dangerous to the US. And instead we have to take the president's word for it? I mean, the president has been honest for the most part but what if that man killed had family? A wife? Kids? What if he was a doctor working on the cure for cancer? We just won't know and now the damage has been done.
ReplyDeleteI believe that is this is truly unjust. I think all people have the right to a trial, no matter the crime done be it sever treason against a State, genocide, etc... The other thing that our nation is built on the idea that all people have the right to a fair trial, which making a hit on individual without a trial, is completely unconstitutional. So I say that the individual is brought into trial, then determined if he should be put in imprisonment, or be killed by the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is truly unjust. I think all people have the right to a trial. no matter the crime done be it sever treason against a State, or genocide.The other thing that our nation is built on the idea that all people have the right to a fair trial which makes it unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea/concept was good, but they should have done a bit more research before taking his life....-Claudia cabrera
ReplyDeletebrian morton-
ReplyDeletei think they should use the death sentance when ever the person is a threat to me..lol
i don't think this is right for them to do. Everyone should at least have a right to a trial and given the chance to prove themselves.
ReplyDelete-vincent alvarado-
everyone has the chance to a fair trial. no one should just die.
ReplyDeleteCircumstances cause us to act the way we do. We should always bear this in mind before judging the actions of others. I realized this from the start during World War II.
ReplyDeleteThor Heyerdahl
THE DEATH PENALTY IS WRONG NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES!
ReplyDeletewell sometimes people loose a case that they were not guilty in so i don't think they should be killed
ReplyDeleteI think the idea/concept was good, but they should have done a bit more research before taking his life....-Claudia cabrera
ReplyDeleteThe should have found out more about him and what he did be for killing him tho
ReplyDeleteI think that we should have brought him in instead of launching a drone on him. Not only is it wrong but its a waste of money too.
ReplyDeleteEveryone does have a right to a fair trial and thats the way it should be for every US citizen. I believe the death penatly should be used in some situations
ReplyDeletei think physically or chemically killing a person should be prohibited i think its better if they just get sentenced to life in jail that way if they discover that the person is innocent then they can set them free
ReplyDeleteThis country, and its government, is supposed to be based on protecting the rights of the people. Having said that, our 5th amendment right guarantees our right to not be "DEPRIVED OF LIFE, liberty, or property, without "DUE PROCESS OF LAW"; our 6th amendment guarantees our right to a fair trial (with an "impartial jury"). When the government circumvents our rights, we should all fear how far they will go. There is no justification for this attack-they obviously knew WHERE he was, in order to enact the strike.
ReplyDeleteWhat if someone who you are close to was wrongfully accused of a capital crime? There may be little room for doubt in this case, but an arbitrary assassination of a United States citizen should raise eyebrows, anywhere.
NO BODY SHOULD DIE PERIOD
ReplyDeletenoooo i think that not right for killing them or taking there life 2 is wrong i think
ReplyDelete