Spinkos tourney,Partial Semi-Finals: Assasination of US citizens is constitutional

First off I would like to apologize for double posting my round 1 argument. It was an error that occurred when the argument from word to DDO; some how it double pasted. I placed the work cited page separately because word kept turning it into bullet points. Targeted Killings and Assassinations Framework Pro claims that US citizens deemed a terrorist can be assassinated, without due process. As an example he uses Awlaki, a US citizen who acted as a recruiter for Al Qaeda. Awlaki was not given a trial, nor was he neither presented nor indicted by a Grand Jury. Alwlaki was blown up by an unmanned drone while he was eating his breakfast. Imagine if due to your political affiliation you were deemed a terrorist by the executive branch; 2 CIA agents could by Pro’s reasoning send a drone to kill you on your way to church. No Grand Jury, no defense attorney, no chance to surrender; you just get marked for death by the President. I’m sorry, but that is in no way constitutional. The Executive branch does not have the power to sentence someone to death. Con Case Pro’s rebuttal Pro attempts to rebut my case by claiming the 2 witnesses needed to convict someone of treason, as required in Article 3 Section 3, could be federal agents. The problem with this rebuttal is that the 2 witnesses are required to convict someone of treason, not to punish them for treason. Pro completely dropped my 5th amendment argument, which states that a Grand Jury is required to provide an indictment or presentment before someone could be brought to answer for capital or infamous crimes; such as treason. The 5th amendment also states that one cannot be deprived of liberty without due process of law; meaning that one must be trialed. According to the 6th amendment to the constitution, in the bill of rights, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” [1] One cannot simply ask a judge to approve assassination; one must hold a public trial for the traitor. In addition to this, the traitor must be given counsel to defend them against the charges. Remember the definition for assassination given in round 1; an assassination is a murder of a public figure by surprise attack. Assassination is much different from an execution; with an execution the criminal knows he is about to die, and he has been sentenced to die. The executive branch does not have the right to sentence someone to death. A cop cannot murder a suspect by surprise attack; they can only shoot in defense. Likewise a traitor cannot be shot in the back while eating breakfast; they can only be shot if they resist arrest, and pose a threat to those who are trying to apprehend them. If a US citizen was holding someone at gun point, or they opened fire on the officials trying to apprehend them, than a sniper or drone could take them out. If they were eating breakfast, or walking their dog, than they cannot be legally killed. Pro also claims that the declaration for independence is not a legal document, however it was ratified by the United States in Congress Assembled. It does not grant us any rights, but rather declares us independent from the British Empire; the only reason I brought it up was that it is relevant to understanding the ideas within constitution. I would also like to point out that using the Supreme Court as an argument is invalid; the supreme court can only be used as source not an argument. Pro Case C1: The Executive Branch First Pro claims that the executive branch wields unlimited power, to do whatever they want. This directly contradicts the constitution. In Article 1 Section 8 the constitution states, “[The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government…”; this is why legislative powers are so narrowly defined, yet judicial and executive powers are so loosely defined. [2] It is up to congress to create rules limiting the authority of the government. One example of this clause would be the ethics laws passed by congress that all politicians must abide by. President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office," which was passed by congress in 1867. [3] Second Pro claims that only legally binding documents are relevant to the debate, yet he uses the federalist papers as an argument. The federalist papers were not legal documents; they were articles printed as propaganda in order to promote ratification of the constitution. It’s nothing more than political commentary by federalists. Not only this, but instead of quoting the federalist papers, he is quoting someone else’s interpretation of the federalist papers. This second argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Third I think pro was confusing “liberties” with “rights”. Civil liberties are freedom from unwarranted restraints, and natural liberties are freedom from unnatural restraints. [4] If someone was convicted and imprisoned by the state, it would violate their natural liberties but not their civil liberties. If someone is assassinated it does not violate their right to liberty, it violates their right to life; thus it’s not their natural liberties that are violated, it’s their natural rights. A natural right is a natural entitlement to man, whereas a civil right is a legal entitlement to citizens. [5] An assassination of US citizens violates both natural and civil rights. C2: The Constitution Pro has yet to mention where in the constitution, the government was granted the authority to assassinate its own citizens. Pro simply appeals to the authority of other people’s interpretations without citing the constitution. 1. http://www.archives.gov... 2. http://www.archives.gov... 3. http://www.historyplace.com... 4. http://thepeoplesguidetotheusconstitution.com... 5. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...