Austin

^^^^ How quickly people forget about McCarthy and the fear he inspired. That was nothing compared to the power to make a decision to kill someone simply because whoever is President "thinks" that person is an "enemy"......also, people think it could never, ever happen to "them." But it can. For example, innocent people are convicted of murders. A healthy respect and caution regarding governmental power is a good thing. I like government but believe it is important to be very cautious with the power we grant to human beings who run government. Checks and balances....always.

Gov. Rick Scott's office ensures journalists won't use official photo by telling them to use it

This ^^^^ is such a disgusting man. He MUST BE A ONE-TERM GOVERNOR in Florida!!!

Rick Scott had Manuel Valle executed Sept.28, 2011. Time of death 7:14 p.m. It is rumored that Scott will now start signing many death warrants. He prefers inmates who were convicted of killing police officers because he gains points in his popularity when he does that. The state of Florida and other states are now using a drug protocol which is very questionable in terms of the 8th Amendment. I find it interesting that the governor CHOOSES NOT to sign warrants on inmates who have already volunteered to be executed. Yes, in fact, inmates on death row CAN/AND DO waive all their appeals and volunteer to be executed; basically, they ask the state to please execute them. Instead, at least in Florida, Gov. Scott prefers to execute the those who would provide him the most political points. Now, what is "fair" about that? Manuel Valle went to death row when he was 27 years old. He was executed when he was 61 years old. He was not at all the same man at 61 that he was when he was 27. At 61, he was a grandfather, a loving father, a much loved friend by hundreds, as well as respected and cared for by his guards. It is my understanding that the guards present at his execution all had tears in their eyes. Valle always maintained that the shot at the police officer was an accident. The bullet his the officer in the neck, on the side of the neck. There was a k-9 dog in the car with the officer, therefore, paramedics could not get him out of the car and to the hospital when they arrived. They had to wait for a dog handler to arrive and manage to get the dog out of the car before they could attend to the wounded officer. He was taken to the hospital but later died there.

Who says his citizenship was voided? you? no court fo law? That's what I don't get. The burden of proof was much stronger that Davis offed a cop. I don't deny he was worthy of death. I would have popped him myself had I seen him and couldn't take him. But rather than give credit to Obama for signing a piece of paper, how about giving credit to the people who did it. And why not ask why they didn't ask them to capture him. He was a US citizen. Can you site me an example of any other US citizen being ordered taken out by the President? And be honest, if Bush did this, you'd be screaming for his head.

If you claim to support justice and democracy, you can't support the state execution of a person without trial. You weren't given access to the intel and are solely going off the word of the media, who let's be honest, isn't a reliable source. If you don't see the conflict, I can't really help you. Just don't bitch when a GOP president takes out Michael Moore.

You are correct, Randall.

Under the Bush administration, powers were granted to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create assassination target lists subject to executive approval. Obama was the first president to issue an open order for the assassination an American citizen. Awlaki never renounced his citizenship, so anyone who claims he gave up his constitutional rights is mistaken. Furthermore, his citizenship was never revoked by the US government. He was never accused or tried for treason. There is no evidence that he was murdered to prevent an imminent threat to American lives, either. His murder was unconstitutional.

It's funny to me how people who were ranting and raving about the unconstitutionality of foreign lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants of any nationality being detained at Guantanamo are not saying much about the unconstitutional act of President Obama ordering the assassination of an American citizen. It's one of those situations where some people are willing to overlook or even attempt to justify criminality because the person committing the act shares their political agenda in some aspect. I hate just about every seated politician in our government, so I don't have to pretend this was a legal, moral or practical act.

American Ruse and Randall, I am a far-left liberal and I agree with you regarding presidential/governmental authority to kill/assassinate American citizens. I don't trust the courts, or the military, or high-level "intel" to always get it right. Imperfect systems by imperfect humans. Death is final. I am a huge Obama supporter however I totally agree with you all that he has continued on with the many dangerous policies and powers given to a President by the George Bush. It is the FEAR instilled in people by the terrorists which motivate them to embrace ever-increasing "exceptions" to our rule of law. We must remember that Obama will not always be President, and who knows what kind of person may occupy that office one day and when a President will decided that a certain American citizen living in this country is a "terrorist" and just kill that person. Seems extreme, but it's not. Experiencing first-hand the level of politics involved in the death penalty, it is my very strong opinion that giving the state/government/President the power to decide personally, without a trial, to kill and American citizen is a very dangerous power.

Follow up piece from one of the authors I linked to earlier in this thread:

On the Death Penalty

And THAT is the question. Do you support killing a "few" innocent people in order to execute a lot of guilty people? Remember, there is still someone who committed a murder out there for each of the innocent people executed, so you don't get ALL the murderers. And do you think that killing a "few" innocent people is a violation of the 8th Amendment? I so totally disagree with the author of the piece you linked to. IMO, the attitude that it's okay to kill even one innocent person in order to enjoy the bloodlust of the death penalty is abhorrent and is a very, very slippery slope. I guess each person would have to ask the question if they were willing to have one of their loved ones be the "one" innocent executed in order to justify the death penalty. Obviously Mr. Goldberg has already answered that question, and clearly he has no objection to himself or someone he loves being "an innocent" executed. He says anti-death penalty folks always use the least "sensational" cases to support their cause. Well, clearly Mr. Goldberg chooses the most horrific, sensational, and emotional cases to support his position. We are all horrified by those types of cases, and it is at that point it is almost impossible to overcome the emotions. It's important to be able to look at this system from a rational and logical point of view. Do WE want and support killing a "few innocents" in order to execute some people convicted of murder but certainly NOT ALL PEOPLE GUILTY OF MURDER?

Not me. Do not kill in my name.