The US president should have the authority to execute American citizens without judicial oversight.
Debate Rounds (3)
If the president can"t protect our country, who can? It is the president"s responsibility to protect America from all threats. He is the head of our country, and it is only right to allow him to be able to protect us. It is in his "job description" that he shall protect his country, our country from any and all threats, according to the Constitution and Scholastic. We chose the president, we awarded him power, and it is completely fair to let him use it. And it is currently the president's right to do this, so my opposition must say how they would remove this. And this right would be very difficult to abolish because born president Obama and American attorney general Eric holder support executing citizens with reasonable cause. Another thing, judge, is that the president must have reasonable cause to execute a citizen, according to the New York Time. Police officers use reasonable suspicion, so it is something the government is familiar with. I know that if we can trust our president with making laws, we can trust him with protecting us.
1. "If the president can"t protect our country, who can? It is the president"s responsibility to protect America from all threats. He is the head of our country, and it is only right to allow him to be able to protect us. It is in his "job description" that he shall protect his country, our country from any and all threats, according to the Constitution and Scholastic."
The president is commander in chief of the military, not civilian law. Only during Martial Law does the president have the right to assassinate American citizens. Also, you cannot protect a free nation by assassinating it's citizens, much less without a trial!
2. " We chose the president, we awarded him power, and it is completely fair to let him use it"
That is not true. Not everybody in the nation voted. Any convicted felon cannot vote. Also, we chose a president that preached about separation of powers. We did not chose a president based on him wanting to assassinate American citizens, because as far as we knew, he didn't.
3. "This right would be very difficult to abolish because Obama and the Attorney General support executing citizens with reasonable cause".
This is circular logic. Of course a president would support the expanding of his own power! Also, the debate is not about difficulty to abolish; rather, the resolution was "The president should have the authority to execute citizens with reasonable cause".
4. "Another thing, judge, is that the president must have reasonable cause to execute a citizen. Police use reasonable suspicion, so it is something the government is familiar with".
This is a false-analogy fallacy. First of all, I don't believe the police have the right to do so either, however, their are still differences. When a police officer searches your car without a warrant, he is not hurting you. He is not interfering with your life. He is denying you a constitutional right, but not necessarily committing a moral wrong. Also, that could be brought up in a trial. However, when the president decides to execute an American citizen, their is no trial afterwards. Their is no judge denying something obtained by a search as submissible evidence. You see, when a police officer searches without a warrant, he is denying you rights. He is not acting as a judge, jury, and executioner. When the president decided to kill someone, he is doing just that. He is gathering the evidence, and judging the evidence and punishment by himself.
5. "I know if we can trust the president to make our laws, we can trust him with protecting us"
The president does not make our laws. The Congress does. Also, we only trust the president because their are certain limitations on his power, as with the congress and the judicial branch.
6. Future Tyranny
This is my own argument. Even if the president is a reasonable man, who is truly looking out for the best interests of the American people, that will not always be the case. Adolph Hitler was elected through a democracy, and became a tyrant. If we grant the Executive office the power to do these things now, we are going to regret it down the road when a president decides to kill political opponents, protesters, members of a certain religion, etc. The fact of the matter is, we must put safeguards down now, to avoid tyranny and wrongful deaths in the future.
Now I will continue into refutations and my next argument.
a. "He is gathering the evidence, and judging the evidence and punishment by himself."
This is absolutely not true. As you will learn in my following argument, the president has numerous advisers available, and he is not the only one gathering the information.
2> Decision made with executive oversight
As stated in the resolution, the president should have the authority to execute citizens without judicial oversight, does not mean he randomly executes anyone he chooses. When making the decision to execute American citizens, the president has numerous advisors and the entire executive branch backing him up. The executive branch includes the president himself, the vice president, and the cabinet. The president can seek advice from all of these people, and they can help him review evidence and provide insight. So judge, I am nearly positive my opposition will ramble on about how the president has been awarded too much power, but really, the president has at least 20 people behind his final decision, according whitehouse.gov. If the president receives word of an American threat, he will begin to look into the case. If he finds that this person is a risk to the safety of America, he will likely turn to his advisors. If they discover they cannot be rid of this hazard in any other way, they will turn to execution. Execution is the absolute last resort. If capture is not at all feasible, the threat must be taken care of. This is a matter of innocent lives against the life of a threat. Let that sink in. The life of a threat against the life of an innocent citizen. Your life against a terrorist's.
"The president has numerous advisers available. He is not the only one gathering information"
He is the one judging the information. He is the person making the decision. At the end of the day, he decided whether or not to kill him. Also,this is not an argument for the president to be exempt from judicial oversight; rather, it is simply arguing that the president is already under judicial oversight. Pro is not arguing for his position, he is arguing that the resolution isn't already in place. By justifying the president making decisions without judicial authority by claiming the president submits to his advisers is circular logic.
"If he finds the person is a risk to the safety of America, he will likely turn to his advisers"
So what, now we have a group of 20 executive advisers making all the decisions without judicial oversight? This is actually taking the power away from the president and giving it to the advisers. If you argue that this is good, then you are admitting that the president should not have the power.
" The life of a threat against the life of an innocent citizen. Your life against a terrorists."
If someone is in the act of committing a violent crime, then I doubt the executive branch would be the decider. However, assassination is not stopping an immediate threat. If the president has the time to make that decision, then the threat is not immeediate. Also, who determines them a terrorist? This is a nice attempt at pathos, but in the end, it is unsubstaniated. A terrorist is a criminal. The executive branch does not have the authority to try a criminal. It is up to a politically impartial judge and jury. That is the way it has worked, going all the way back to the English Bill of Rights.
When did I ever say this was good? I merely said that this is what is happening, so the president will not become a tyrant, as you are trying to convince everyone.
b. "That is the way it has worked, going all the way back to the English Bill of Rights."
When one begins to act against America, as these terrorists have, their rights are stripped from them, even if they are a citizen. This is according to the U.S. passport. One of the terrorists killed so far, Anwar al-Awlaki, was near the top of the most wanted persons list. He was an American citizen, but he worked against America, by joining al-Qaida, stripping him of his rights.
Now, on to my final point.
3> Individual accountability
Anwar al-Awlaki was one of the most wanted terrorists, according to the Wall Street Journal, and he was a key player in recruiting new members of al-Qaida. In this case, al-Awlaki had been on the run from government officials for nearly two years. He had been a major threat to America. He was increasing al Qaida"s size and magnitude of power. After much thought and overview, the president decided to send in a drone to take Awlaki out and end his reign of terror. This is a case where it was nearly impossible to catch this man, so other actions had to be taken. He was an adult, and it was his responsibility to monitor his actions. In America, you are given adult responsibility at the age of 18. At that point it is your responsibility how you live your life. Anwar al-Awlaki made the decision to cause harm and terror to the American people. He was sought out by the government. They chased him, but he kept running. The same went for ex-LAPD officer Christopher Dorner. These people, especially Dorner, were familiar with the law and the concept of consequences. These men realized, as any adult should, that there WAS a fair trial waiting, and all they had to do was show themselves. So you CANNOT say that these people deserved a fair trial. They had every right to one, but refused the offer.
So, in conclusion, you can clearly see that it is necessary and equitable that we allow our president to hold the power to execute citizens without judicial oversight. On our side, we have the impacts of saving thousands of lives and the ultimate protection of our country. Thank you.
Fictional_Truths1 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.