Gingrich on killing an American terrorist on foreign soil

[jimnyc]

Sounds like the crowd doesn't understand the constitution and are just sheep that believe anything the government tells them. :rolleyes:

Gingrich breaks it down perfectly.

<object height="370" width="450">


<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/264_1321165785" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" height="370" width="450"></object>

[Love Monkey]

I like Newt. He would get my vote.

[Abbey Marie]

Newt really gave that moderator a smack down. He seems smarter than the rest of the panel. And it seems to me that "smart" is a good starting point for a president.

[fj1200]

Sounds like the crowd doesn't understand the constitution and are just sheep that believe anything the government tells them. :rolleyes:

They had a debate in front of a Constitutional Law Society? Who knew?

[Thunderknuckles]

Newt really gave that moderator a smack down.
Not the first time he has done it either. I like that about him. He has no problem putting these guys in their place when they ask stupid questions or a question based on a false premise. I'd love to see him in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Obama.

[jimnyc]

They had a debate in front of a Constitutional Law Society? Who knew?

Thanks for proving my point! My statement was meant as "humor" - as to what people like you say about anyone who would agree with Newt and his stance. :laugh2:

[fj1200]

Thanks for proving my point! My statement was meant as "humor" - as to what people like you say about anyone who would agree with Newt and his stance. :laugh2:

":rolleyes:" is humor now? I'll have to update my posting pattern.

[jimnyc]

":rolleyes:" is humor now? I'll have to update my posting pattern.

Do you seriously think "smilies", regardless of which one, are meant to convey any type of seriousness? It's a "rolling eyes" smiley, as if to roll them at the repeated statements from people from the past. But I'll see if I can get "more serious" smileys for you so as not to make a mistake again.

[jimnyc]

":rolleyes:" is humor now? I'll have to update my posting pattern.

Btw - regardless of how you took my statement, you still proved my "intended" point.

And terrorists are still being killed, whether American or not. I'm sorry you take issue with that, but you'll learn to deal. :lol: <--- This means I am laughing

[revelarts]

Sounds like the crowd doesn't understand the constitution and are just sheep that believe anything the government tells them. :rolleyes:

Gingrich breaks it down perfectly.

<object height="370" width="450">


<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/264_1321165785" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" height="370" width="450"></object>





So congress has declared war against American Citizens, that threaten to kill us?
ANd the RULE of law says that "THREATS to Kill US citizens" is WAR , or is it only war some of the time .. IN THE RULE OF LAW that is.
Soooo it seems we still have to answer the question about the fringe Militia or KKK in Montana or Texas or where you live that have threatened WAR and written about Gov't overthrow etc.. A SECRET PANEL should decide that they are Worthy of Assassination. A drone strike of a convoy -2 cars- and any children that might be stupid enough to hang out with their parents.

Newt is talking out of his hindquarters.

he knows very well that assassination of U.S. citizens fits NO legal definition of War the U.S. has ever fought. And No new laws have been added to make it so. At another point in the debate he Complains about the Church commission that exposed the CIA and FBI assignations, spying on U.S. citizens and other completely Illegal & unconstitutional crap. That tells you all to clearly just how committed Newt is to the constitution or Rule of Law.

Smartest unconstitutional guy in the room still makes for a rotten president, not to mention all the BS he did while "conservative" Speaker of the house. Fool me once shame on Newt...

[fj1200]

Btw - regardless of how you took my statement, you still proved my "intended" point.

Then your "point" was silly and not very well expressed.


And terrorists are still being killed, whether American or not. I'm sorry you take issue with that, but you'll learn to deal. :lol: <--- This means I am laughing

Why do I need to learn to deal? I am no fan of terrorists.

[jimnyc]

Then your "point" was silly and not very well expressed.



Why do I need to learn to deal? I am no fan of terrorists.

Because you only bolded the first portion and not the second that terrorists will continue to be killed - whether American or not. It's happened, and hopefully the military, our government, CIA and others will continue killing terrorists, wherever they may be and whomever they may be.

[ConHog]

By all means, let's declare that unilateraly we will NOT kill terrorists who happen to have US Citizenship. I'm quite sure AQ wouldn't alter their tactics to take advantage of THAT :rolleyes:


Oh, and Newt had his chance to shape this country, he failed. NEXT

[fj1200]

- whether American or not.

Silly constitution.

[jimnyc]

Silly constitution.

Just silly of you to think YOUR opinion on a legal issue makes it unconstitutional and to just declare it so. Too bad actual attorneys that know a hell of a lot more about the law than you do, believe otherwise, and allowed the action to take place. If you or others feel the governments actions are unconstitutional, then challenge them and bring it before the courts. Until such time, it goes forward as such. But you can't just bypass the judicial system and declare something unconstitutional, not legally. Until then, whether the cockroaches are American or not, they will be sought out and killed, just like Awlaki.

[fj1200]

Just silly of you to think YOUR opinion on a legal issue makes it unconstitutional and to just declare it so. Too bad actual attorneys that know a hell of a lot more about the law than you do, believe otherwise, and allowed the action to take place. If you or others feel the governments actions are unconstitutional, then challenge them and bring it before the courts. Until such time, it goes forward as such. But you can't just bypass the judicial system and declare something unconstitutional, not legally. Until then, whether the cockroaches are American or not, they will be sought out and killed, just like Awlaki.

Yes, I've heard that brilliant argument somewhere before. :rolleyes: And all those actual attorneys who feel that the government decided wrongly have zero insight into the arguments as well. It is convenient that the administration has bypassed the judicial system though; they must not have much faith that they would have won their day in court.

[avatar4321]

Newt is an excellent debater. No doubt about that.

I could support him for President.

But then I think I could support any of the candidates. So that's not saying much. Anything is an improvement on what we have.

[jimnyc]

Yes, I've heard that brilliant argument somewhere before. :rolleyes: And all those actual attorneys who feel that the government decided wrongly have zero insight into the arguments as well. It is convenient that the administration has bypassed the judicial system though; they must not have much faith that they would have won their day in court.

Please point me to where these attorneys have filed their cases against the governments actions to have it declared unconstitutional....

[jimnyc]

Yes, I've heard that brilliant argument somewhere before. :rolleyes: And all those actual attorneys who feel that the government decided wrongly have zero insight into the arguments as well. It is convenient that the administration has bypassed the judicial system though; they must not have much faith that they would have won their day in court.

Btw - why would they have to "win their day in court"? They have/had no reason whatsoever to bring their issue to the courts. Are you implying that every action are government takes must be brought to the courts first to ensure it passes constitutional muster? That's why they have attorneys on the payroll, to ensure the actions they are taking are within the law. And again, a lawsuit could easily reverse actions going forward. I'll wait to see how the lawsuits play out by the attorneys you mentioned.

[ConHog]

Btw - why would they have to "win their day in court"? They have/had no reason whatsoever to bring their issue to the courts. Are you implying that every action are government takes must be brought to the courts first to ensure it passes constitutional muster? That's why they have attorneys on the payroll, to ensure the actions they are taking are within the law. And again, a lawsuit could easily reverse actions going forward. I'll wait to see how the lawsuits play out by the attorneys you mentioned.

I am completely torn here. On the one hand obviously the COTUS is pretty straight to the point about due process. On the other hand, just as obviously there is NOWAY the founding fathers could have foreseen such a situation. That's where guys like FJ make me laugh. It's a fanciful romanticized version of history that says the founding fathers were so brilliant that they planned for every conceivable situation and included it in the COTUS. The reality is quite different. The FFs weren't soothsayers, they couldn't have planned for abortions, automatic weapons, us citizens involved with terrorists , or a whole host of other things with which we find ourselves dealing with now. This is where common sense should step in and say you know what if you're hiding in a country that refuses to aid us and plotting against us, we're gonna use our military to take you out, citizenship be damned.

[fj1200]

Please point me to where these attorneys have filed their cases against the governments actions to have it declared unconstitutional....

Please point me to where the administration attempted to prove their case in court complete with an appeals process. Also, I'm wondering where you pointed out to LA that his silly protestation about Obamacare being unconstitutional and where actual attorneys gave it their stamp before being passed and signed... Also where you pointed to CH about his silly rantings that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional where actual attorneys and SC justices thought otherwise...

[fj1200]

Btw - why would they have to "win their day in court"? They have/had no reason whatsoever to bring their issue to the courts. Are you implying that every action are government takes must be brought to the courts first to ensure it passes constitutional muster? That's why they have attorneys on the payroll, to ensure the actions they are taking are within the law. And again, a lawsuit could easily reverse actions going forward. I'll wait to see how the lawsuits play out by the attorneys you mentioned.

You mean when crimes are alleged and unproven in a court of law the government can just act and take them out? Wow, justice is sure easy in your world; Due process is such a sticky thing.

I'll wait too and it will be interesting to see how it comes out.

[fj1200]

I am completely torn here. On the one hand obviously the COTUS is pretty straight to the point about due process. On the other hand, just as obviously there is NOWAY the founding fathers could have foreseen such a situation. That's where guys like FJ make me laugh. It's a fanciful romanticized version of history that says the founding fathers were so brilliant that they planned for every conceivable situation and included it in the COTUS. The reality is quite different. The FFs weren't soothsayers, they couldn't have planned for abortions, automatic weapons, us citizens involved with terrorists , or a whole host of other things with which we find ourselves dealing with now. This is where common sense should step in and say you know what if you're hiding in a country that refuses to aid us and plotting against us, we're gonna use our military to take you out, citizenship be damned.

Please point out where I claim brilliance for the FFs. But maybe you're right, they didn't include anything like Treason. :rolleyes:

BTW, how's the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act working out for you?

[revelarts]

From someone uneasy about killing American but generally thinks it's OK if you only kill the bad guys, the president know who they are just trust him.

"Yet, when Awlaki’s father asked a court to enjoin the president from killing his despicable son, the administration asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the case by invoking “state secrets.” With that, the Obama administration argued that the president should be empowered to order the execution of a U.S. citizen — outside a war zone and without exhibiting an imminent threat to other citizens — without any oversight from the judicial or legislative branches of government. And by using the protection of state secrets argument, the administration is also asserting that the public has no right to know why."


http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/09/30/chewing-over-al-awlaks-assassination/


The Founders Could imagine that, well they didn't have to Imagine that did they?
Rule of Law Yes sir ree.

[jimnyc]

"Yet, when Awlaki’s father asked a court to enjoin the president from killing his despicable son, the administration asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the case by invoking “state secrets.” With that, the Obama administration argued that the president should be empowered to order the execution of a U.S. citizen — outside a war zone and without exhibiting an imminent threat to other citizens — without any oversight from the judicial or legislative branches of government. And by using the protection of state secrets argument, the administration is also asserting that the public has no right to know why."

He should have contacted his son and asked him to stop being a terrorist instead of going to the US government. Too bad for him.

[fj1200]

"... the Obama administration argued that the president should be empowered to order the execution of a U.S. citizen — outside a war zone and without exhibiting an imminent threat to other citizens — without any oversight from the judicial or legislative branches of government. And by using the protection of state secrets argument, the administration is also asserting that the public has no right to know why."

This is what I don't get; we're all happy that a terrorist is dead and won't be fomenting anymore hate and/or violence against the US... BUT there is no concern about ceding that much power to one branch/one man with zero oversight. The FFs didn't have to be brilliant to put in those checks and balances.

[jimnyc]

Please point me to where the administration attempted to prove their case in court complete with an appeals process. Also, I'm wondering where you pointed out to LA that his silly protestation about Obamacare being unconstitutional and where actual attorneys gave it their stamp before being passed and signed... Also where you pointed to CH about his silly rantings that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional where actual attorneys and SC justices thought otherwise...

The administration doesn't need a court case and an appeal to do what their attorneys tell them is within the law. Why you seem to think any administration needs to go to court BEFORE they do things is beyond me, especially in things that involve national security. Did they get approval from a court before killing Osama, or was it a decision from within?

I had no need to point out anything to Little Acorn - he was smart enough to understand, as were plaintiffs, that if they felt something was unconstitutional, they would need to address the courts and/or move to a higher court. The exact same thing holds true about Obamacare - it's currently constitutional and within the law, until and if the courts declare otherwise.

I had no need to point out anything to CH as I never read whatever thread it is you are referring to. Either way, addressing CH or LA has zilch to do with what is being discussed here.

[fj1200]

:facepalm:

[jimnyc]

:facepalm:

I guess I'd fall back on that too if I were you.

[fj1200]

Just find the right attorney then.

All power and glory to the one.

[revelarts]

Just find the right attorney then.

All power and glory to the one.

As Nixon said "it's not illegal if the president does it."

Or maybe as long as one can get the courts and legislative branch to agree or ignore it , it's legal.

Might makes right, the winners write the history books,

war is peace freedom is slavery

[fj1200]

The administration doesn't need a court case and an appeal to do what their attorneys tell them is within the law. Why you seem to think any administration needs to go to court BEFORE they do things is beyond me, especially in things that involve national security. Did they get approval from a court before killing Osama, or was it a decision from within?

When have I said any administration needs to go to court BEFORE they do anything? I just don't think it's a good plan to let one branch of government to have the power to try, convict, and sentence.


... they would need to address the courts...

Either way, addressing CH or LA has zilch to do with what is being discussed here.

It has everything to do with it. Everyone knows that if you don't like a policy you can address it in court. If it had zilch to do then every time someone brought up constitutionality we'll just say, "the courts are..." Seems we're not supposed to have an opinion about constitutional issues eh?

[jimnyc]

When have I said any administration needs to go to court BEFORE they do anything? I just don't think it's a good plan to let one branch of government to have the power to try, convict, and sentence.


Please point me to where the administration attempted to prove their case in court complete with an appeals process. Also, I'm wondering where you pointed out to LA that his silly protestation about Obamacare being unconstitutional and where actual attorneys gave it their stamp before being passed and signed... Also where you pointed to CH about his silly rantings that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional where actual attorneys and SC justices thought otherwise...

Why bother talking about Obamacare where attorneys supposedly "gave their stamp" prior to the actions, right after asking when the administration did so in the killing of Awlaki, if you weren't trying to say they should have done the same? If it was good enough that "actual attorneys" gave their stamp of approval before passing Obamacare - well, actual attorneys gave their stamp of approval on the administration to move forward against Awlaki.

[ConHog]

FJ , IF this has been done on US soil, or IF the American in question were guilty of anything other than terrorism you would certainly have me on your "side." As is stands, I fail to see why you care how we dealt with a guy who was committed to killing as many of his fellow Americans as possible.

Further, I see you just ignored my question AGAIN.

How would you have dealt with this guy? Basically the choices were

A) Ignore him
B) Attemp to arrest him in Yemen
C) Take him out

:Please answer.

[fj1200]

FJ , IF this has been done on US soil, or IF the American in question were guilty of anything other than terrorism you would certainly have me on your "side." As is stands, I fail to see why you care how we dealt with a guy who was committed to killing as many of his fellow Americans as possible.

Further, I see you just ignored my question AGAIN.

I didn't ignore your question AGAIN. :rolleyes: I answered in the other thread; look it up. As far as why I care... asked and answered.

[fj1200]

Why bother talking about Obamacare where attorneys supposedly "gave their stamp" prior to the actions, right after asking when the administration did so in the killing of Awlaki, if you weren't trying to say they should have done the same? If it was good enough that "actual attorneys" gave their stamp of approval before passing Obamacare - well, actual attorneys gave their stamp of approval on the administration to move forward against Awlaki.

Too bad it's not a rubber stamp attorney brief that should trump constitutional protections and process. Execution by legal brief; I missed that in Con 101. :rolleyes: I guess we'll just have to sit around and wait for SCOTUS to restore constitutional protections.

[jimnyc]

Too bad it's not a rubber stamp attorney brief that should trump constitutional protections and process. Execution by legal brief; I missed that in Con 101. :rolleyes: I guess we'll just have to sit around and wait for SCOTUS to restore constitutional protections.

Odd, I believe it was just one page back where you touted the fact that the Obama administration had attorneys give "Obamacare" their stamp of approval before it was passed and signed - then when we discuss, likely the very same attorneys giving their stamp of approval on action against Awlaki, not enough was done?

[fj1200]

Odd, I believe it was just one page back where you touted the fact that the Obama administration had attorneys give "Obamacare" their stamp of approval before it was passed and signed - then when we discuss, likely the very same attorneys giving their stamp of approval on action against Awlaki, not enough was done?

The analogy got lost in the mix; Administration legal opinions do not ensure constitutionality. You asked why the POTUS doesn't get a legal opinion on everything; they base their actions on existing law, legal opinion not necessary. Hence, the legal opinion that they based their action on doesn't ensure that it was constitutional and unless they based their action on current law they are deficient in that area as well.

If Awlaki is guilty of treason, which is defined in Article III and Article III establishes the Judiciary Branch, then is it unreasonable that he be tried in the Judiciary Branch rather than tried by an Executive Branch committee?

[Gunny]

Silly constitution.

Terrorists are terrorists. Just like the OWS crowd. They should be treated as such and not allowed to hide behind some perverted interpretations of the US Constitution.

[Abbey Marie]

Terrorists are terrorists. Just like the OWS crowd. They should be treated as such and not allowed to hide behind some perverted interpretations of the US Constitution.

But, but, what would the ACLU do if that happened?

[fj1200]

Ummmm, wow. Due process and specifically defined rules for treason are "perverted interpretations"?

[Gunny]

Ummmm, wow. Due process and specifically defined rules for treason are "perverted interpretations"?

They can surrender and have their "due process". That simple. A "perverted interpretation" would be allowing criminals, murderers and enemy combatants to hide behind "due process". You take up arms during an armed conflict and you get shot, tough shit. Your own doing.

[ConHog]

The analogy got lost in the mix; Administration legal opinions do not ensure constitutionality. You asked why the POTUS doesn't get a legal opinion on everything; they base their actions on existing law, legal opinion not necessary. Hence, the legal opinion that they based their action on doesn't ensure that it was constitutional and unless they based their action on current law they are deficient in that area as well.

If Awlaki is guilty of treason, which is defined in Article III and Article III establishes the Judiciary Branch, then is it unreasonable that he be tried in the Judiciary Branch rather than tried by an Executive Branch committee?

Is Awlaki guilty of treason (or was he rather?) Personally , I don't think treason is the correct charge for what he was doing. As far as I know he wasn't attempting to overthrow the government. He was simply a terrorist. Terrorism is not addressed in the COTUS at all, thus the COTUS has no clear answer on how to deal with this.

Why some people think the COTUS is some magical document with the answer to every question in the world is beyond me. The founding fathers were brilliant, but they had their limitations on what they could plan for.

[Gunny]

Is Awlaki guilty of treason (or was he rather?) Personally , I don't think treason is the correct charge for what he was doing. As far as I know he wasn't attempting to overthrow the government. He was simply a terrorist. Terrorism is not addressed in the COTUS at all, thus the COTUS has no clear answer on how to deal with this.

Why some people think the COTUS is some magical document with the answer to every question in the world is beyond me. The founding fathers were brilliant, but they had their limitations on what they could plan for.

Left and/or progressive, wannabe-elitists would afford the Rights of this Nation to people trying to destroy those Rights. All in all a "brilliant" concept.:cuckoo:

[ConHog]

Left and/or progressive, wannabe-elitists would afford the Rights of this Nation to people trying to destroy those Rights. All in all a "brilliant" concept.:cuckoo:

I wonder if its political ideology or just constitutional ignorance. I've seen too many people of all stripes who misinterpret the COTUS and or believe it says things it simply doesn't say, I chalk it up to people are stupid.

[fj1200]

They can surrender and have their "due process". That simple. A "perverted interpretation" would be allowing criminals, murderers and enemy combatants to hide behind "due process". You take up arms during an armed conflict and you get shot, tough shit. Your own doing.

Criminals and murderers get their due process every day in this country; do you want to take away that "perverted interpretation" then? Child molesters too then?


Left and/or progressive, wannabe-elitists would afford the Rights of this Nation to people trying to destroy those Rights. All in all a "brilliant" concept.:cuckoo:

We're talking about a member of this nation; From what other citizens do you want to take away the "Rights of this Nation"?

[ConHog]

Criminals and murderers get their due process every day in this country; do you want to take away that "perverted interpretation" then? Child molesters too then?



We're talking about a member of this nation; From what other citizens do you want to take away the "Rights of this Nation"?



Again I ask, do you recognize that their are situations where due process simply can't be afforded to a person? A US citizen who's turned yellow and his hiding in a cave in Yeman while plotting to kill Americans is probably one of those situations.

And I think Gunny was referring to those who would afford due process to non Americans. Which is largely the same group of people who are crying over Awlaki getting a missile up his tailpipe.

[fj1200]

Is Awlaki guilty of treason (or was he rather?) Personally , I don't think treason is the correct charge for what he was doing. As far as I know he wasn't attempting to overthrow the government. He was simply a terrorist. Terrorism is not addressed in the COTUS at all, thus the COTUS has no clear answer on how to deal with this.

Why some people think the COTUS is some magical document with the answer to every question in the world is beyond me. The founding fathers were brilliant, but they had their limitations on what they could plan for.

Is kidnapping in the constitution? How did we every figure that one out? And it's been proposed that he is guilty of treason, if not then what other crime has he been convicted of? Indicted for? But death by committee and legal brief seems a stretch, no?


I wonder if its political ideology or just constitutional ignorance. I've seen too many people of all stripes who misinterpret the COTUS and or believe it says things it simply doesn't say, I chalk it up to people are stupid.

Where's the misinterpretation? Still of the mind that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional?

[fj1200]

Again I ask, do you recognize that their are situations where due process simply can't be afforded to a person? A US citizen who's turned yellow and his hiding in a cave in Yeman while plotting to kill Americans is probably one of those situations.

And I think Gunny was referring to those who would afford due process to non Americans. Which is largely the same group of people who are crying over Awlaki getting a missile up his tailpipe.

He should refer that way then.

Do you think we had done everything against Awlaki that should have been done prior to death by committee?


And now he's tied to a plot that would have killed hundreds in the heart of New York City. The White House has to do more, and it can by:
• Adding Awlaki to the FBI's most-wanted terrorist list.• Putting a bounty on his head, starting at $1 million.• Blacklisting him as a specially designated global terrorist.• Freezing his assets and making it illegal to support him.• Charging him with treason and filing extradition orders with the Yemeni government.The Justice Department has done this with another American who joined al-Qaida — Adam Gadahn — who is hiding out in Pakistan. Why not Awlaki?
http://news.investors.com/Article/532892/201005101836/Awlaki-Strikes-FI7Again.htm

So we got lucky with Awlaki that we had drone rights in Yemen? What if he were in China?

[ConHog]

Is kidnapping in the constitution? How did we every figure that one out? And it's been proposed that he is guilty of treason, if not then what other crime has he been convicted of? Indicted for? But death by committee and legal brief seems a stretch, no?



Where's the misinterpretation? Still of the mind that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional?

No of course kidnapping isn't in the COTUS and so it up to , wait for it............ judicial discretion on how to handle it. Just as Awlaki was handled by Judicial discretion.

I know it's been proposed that he's guilty of treason. I don't agree with that proposal. I think he's guilty of attempted mass murder, conspiring with the enemy (which isn't quite the same thing as treason but is close) and aiding and abetting in various other crimes.

Are you suggesting that rather than the government deciding to take out our enemies out that we should have a civilian jury vote yea or nay on killling them? The end result is the same. Cockroach gets smashed, only we don't have to pay for a trial that wouldn't be due process anyway because due process includes being allowed to examine your accusers and if the guy isn't in custody to force him to go to court well how can he question his accusers? So now your options are arrest him or ignore him. Which do you prefer?

[fj1200]

No of course kidnapping isn't in the COTUS and so it up to , wait for it............ judicial discretion on how to handle it. Just as Awlaki was handled by Judicial discretion.

I know it's been proposed that he's guilty of treason. I don't agree with that proposal. I think he's guilty of attempted mass murder, conspiring with the enemy (which isn't quite the same thing as treason but is close) and aiding and abetting in various other crimes.

Are you suggesting that rather than the government deciding to take out our enemies out that we should have a civilian jury vote yea or nay on killling them? The end result is the same. Cockroach gets smashed, only we don't have to pay for a trial that wouldn't be due process anyway because due process includes being allowed to examine your accusers and if the guy isn't in custody to force him to go to court well how can he question his accusers? So now your options are arrest him or ignore him. Which do you prefer?

Please link me to where Awlaki was handled by Judicial discretion or where the Judiciary had a hand in his case. If he's not guilty of treason and he is guilty of those other crimes, I'm pretty sure we have laws on the books and we successfully prosecute them in court. Do you agree we did not pursue every option?

Your last paragraph? I believe we discussed that in the other thread.

[ConHog]

Please link me to where Awlaki was handled by Judicial discretion or where the Judiciary had a hand in his case. If he's not guilty of treason and he is guilty of those other crimes, I'm pretty sure we have laws on the books and we successfully prosecute them in court. Do you agree we did not pursue every option?

Your last paragraph? I believe we discussed that in the other thread.

I agree that we don't know for sure what options were pursued. I also agree that we probably didn't ask Yeman to turn the guy over to us ( for obvious reasons such as "umm he isn't here" and then poof he's gone.)

I also agree that Obama is doing his damnest to be the US dictator who makes unilateral decisions and to hell with dissenting opinion.

I am merely saying that the COTUS is at best gray in this area and I'm not the least bit uncomfortable with the dude being killed.

[fj1200]

I agree that we don't know for sure what options were pursued. I also agree that we probably didn't ask Yeman to turn the guy over to us ( for obvious reasons such as "umm he isn't here" and then poof he's gone.)

I also agree that Obama is doing his damnest to be the US dictator who makes unilateral decisions and to hell with dissenting opinion.

I am merely saying that the COTUS is at best gray in this area and I'm not the least bit uncomfortable with the dude being killed.

So, no judicial discretion?

And I'm not sure how you can square the last line with the line directly previous to it. BO wants dictatorial power while you're happy to grant him exactly that.

[ConHog]

So, no judicial discretion?

And I'm not sure how you can square the last line with the line directly previous to it. BO wants dictatorial power while you're happy to grant him exactly that.

I didn't say I was happy about anything. I merely don't have a problem with this one case.

[Nukeman]

The chase for this guy is just like any other case in the US, If we have a addmitted murderer and says he isn't going down without a fight. If he gets cornered and decides to fight his way out and gets shot/killed in the process is that not denying his due Process. I mean after all he didn't have his day in court.

I look at it the same way, here you have a ADMITTED terrorist that says he will NEVER give up and will fight to the end, well he got EXACTLY what he wanted now didn't he!?!?!?!?

Now if there was NO proff that he did what he did or he didn't admit what he did you would have a valid argument, since that is not the case I see it as an attempt to capture that turned into a deadly persuit...

[revelarts]

The chase for this guy is just like any other case in the US, If we have a addmitted murderer and says he isn't going down without a fight. If he gets cornered and decides to fight his way out and gets shot/killed in the process is that not denying his due Process. I mean after all he didn't have his day in court.

I look at it the same way, here you have a ADMITTED terrorist that says he will NEVER give up and will fight to the end, well he got EXACTLY what he wanted now didn't he!?!?!?!?

Now if there was NO proff that he did what he did or he didn't admit what he did you would have a valid argument, since that is not the case I see it as an attempt to capture that turned into a deadly persuit...

Who was Awalaki Shooting it out with?
Who did he kill? Ever?
When did he say he'd never give up without a fight? was he talking to the CIA before the drone struck him.
Where was he "cornered" on the road in his 2 car convoy?

It's not "like" any of that.
not really.

Look, the best we can say is this is Cowboy justice only because many think the guy "had it comin".
But the sad Truth is this is a dictatorial move and an illegal precedent that WILL be used in the future. maybe even when you don't think the American victim "had it comin". Not calling it what it is today sets the stage for MORE secret killings and the commentators will Blithely say.
"Well back in 2011 Obama Killed Americans without trials to WIDE bipartisan support, and the courts allowed it , though technically not a constitutional power in "war time" it's an established effective real world practice."

Our children will thank us all.

[ConHog]

Who was Awalaki Shooting it out with?
Who did he kill? Ever?
When did he say he'd never give up without a fight? was he talking to the CIA before the drone struck him.
Where was he "cornered" on the road in his 2 car convoy?

It's not "like" any of that.
not really.

Look, the best we can say is this is Cowboy justice only because many think the guy "had it comin".
But the sad Truth is this is a dictatorial move and an illegal precedent that WILL be used in the future. maybe even when you don't think the American victim "had it comin". Not calling it what it is today sets the stage for MORE secret killings and the commentators will Blithely say.
"Well back in 2011 Obama Killed Americans without trials to WIDE bipartisan support, and the courts allowed it , though technically not a constitutional power in "war time" it's an established effective real world practice."

Our children will thank us all.


Are you really naive enough to believe that this hasn't been done before? We just know more than we used to.

[fj1200]

^And that's good to you?

[Gunny]

Criminals and murderers get their due process every day in this country; do you want to take away that "perverted interpretation" then? Child molesters too then?



We're talking about a member of this nation; From what other citizens do you want to take away the "Rights of this Nation"?

A "member of this nation" collaborating with this Nation's enemies is an enemy of this Nation. Not that hard unless you think you're so damned intelligent you can over-think the simple math.

Again, I don't care WHERE the enemy is from. Period. An armed combatant enemy is a target. If that idiot is captured or surrenders and subjects himself to the judiciary system and gets sentenced to death ... bye.

[revelarts]

.... Not calling it what it is today sets the stage for MORE secret killings and the commentators will Blithely say.
"Well back in 2011 Obama Killed Americans without trials to WIDE bipartisan support, and the courts allowed it , though technically not a constitutional power in "war time" it's an established effective real world practice."

Our children will thank us all.


Are you really naive enough to believe that this hasn't been done before? We just know more than we used to.

Or they'll say Presidents have been doing it all along secretly anyway...

so the constitution is irrelevant in the "real world".


Except of course when the president "goes to far" then we'll stop him.

[fj1200]

A "member of this nation" collaborating with this Nation's enemies is an enemy of this Nation. Not that hard unless you think you're so damned intelligent you can over-think the simple math.

Again, I don't care WHERE the enemy is from. Period. An armed combatant enemy is a target. If that idiot is captured or surrenders and subjects himself to the judiciary system and gets sentenced to death ... bye.

Silly Constitution. At least the administration needed a 50-page memo to overthink that simple math.

[Gunny]

Silly Constitution. At least the administration needed a 50-page memo to overthink that simple math.

You already tried this response. Doesn't work. Quoting the administration is HARDLY credible. They're a bunch of buffoons trying to repeat the fall of the Roman Empire and doing a damned good job with enablers like you around.

Fact is, all Gingrich said is he wouldn't have a problem signing a death warrant the person was sentenced to death. Bid deal. That's all I've seen anyone say. How that got twisted into the usual, Holier than thou bullshit thread attempting to make a lawful execution murder by the usual sideways talkers -- like you -- beats me. Y'all could fuck up boiling water.

[Nukeman]

Who was Awalaki Shooting it out with?
Who did he kill? Ever?
When did he say he'd never give up without a fight? was he talking to the CIA before the drone struck him.
Where was he "cornered" on the road in his 2 car convoy?

It's not "like" any of that.
not really.

Look, the best we can say is this is Cowboy justice only because many think the guy "had it comin".
But the sad Truth is this is a dictatorial move and an illegal precedent that WILL be used in the future. maybe even when you don't think the American victim "had it comin". Not calling it what it is today sets the stage for MORE secret killings and the commentators will Blithely say.
"Well back in 2011 Obama Killed Americans without trials to WIDE bipartisan support, and the courts allowed it , though technically not a constitutional power in "war time" it's an established effective real world practice."

Our children will thank us all.

Rev. Every terrorist he convinced to kill others.... that blood is on his hands EVERY DROP.. or do you think otherwise. this man was a piece of shit and I cnat for the life of me understand why you are losing sleep over his demise... as for my assertions that he wouldsn't give up and that he is no different than a killer on the lose being chased I submitt the following information about him as reason why I personaly would have pulled the trigger on this worthless peice of shit....



http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/485102D8-6D6E-4B6B-902B-E8AC366CC496,DB7611A2-02CD-43AF-8147-649E26813571,frameless.htm


In many of al-Awlaki's videos, he calls on Muslims around the world to kill Americans. In a video released on November 8, 2010, titled "Make it known and clear to mankind," al-Awlaki said, "Don't consult with anybody in killing the Americans, fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance," he said.<O:p></O:p>


<O:p>Al-Awlaki's materials have inspired several American Muslim extremists to carry out terrorist attacks in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">U.S.</ST1:place></st1:country-region> and join terrorist groups overseas. The Yemeni-based cleric reportedly exchanged more than a dozen emails with Nidal Malik Hasan (http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/fort_hood_shooting.htm), the alleged gunman who killed 13 people and wounded 32 others at the Fort Hood Army base in <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Texas</ST1:place></st1:State> in November 2009. In his May 2010 interview, al-Awlaki called Hasan "one of my students" and in an interview held a month after the Fort Hood attack, al-Awlaki explained that he first met Hasan nine years earlier when he served as the imam of a mosque attended by Hasan in the Washington, D.C. area. In their subsequent e-mail communications, Hasan asked al-Awlaki if a Muslim soldier serving in the American Army was allowed to kill his fellow soldiers, expressed his support of killing Israeli civilians and mentioned various justifications for "targeting the Jews with rockets</O:p>


Those bolded parts are the important bits Rev. that in its self is jsutification for me to take this asshat out...
</O:p>

[fj1200]

You already tried this response. Doesn't work. Quoting the administration is HARDLY credible. They're a bunch of buffoons trying to repeat the fall of the Roman Empire and doing a damned good job with enablers like you around.

It was all that was necessary given your deep thinking on the subject. I didn't quote the administration only that it took 50 pages of justification to avoid having to go to Judiciary or have Congress make an actual law to address the situation. Still no one has answered why they think that an administration trying to "repeat the fall of the Roman Empire" is worthy of the power to try, convict, and carry out sentence on an American citizen; Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at that?


Fact is, all Gingrich said is he wouldn't have a problem signing a death warrant the person was sentenced to death. Bid deal. That's all I've seen anyone say. How that got twisted into the usual, Holier than thou bullshit thread attempting to make a lawful execution murder by the usual sideways talkers -- like you -- beats me. Y'all could fuck up boiling water.

No, he said more than that, he was accepting of the rationale used to carry out the sentence. That, in my mind, doesn't disqualify him for POTUS because I'll argue that should be his duty as CiC, to take a hard line, but it also doesn't mean that he should be able to take action that avoids review. BTW, by what law was he executed?

[revelarts]

Rev. Every terrorist he convinced to kill others.... that blood is on his hands EVERY DROP.. or do you think otherwise. this man was a piece of shit and I cnat for the life of me understand why you are losing sleep over his demise... as for my assertions that he wouldsn't give up and that he is no different than a killer on the lose being chased I submitt the following information about him as reason why I personaly would have pulled the trigger on this worthless peice of shit....



http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/485102D8-6D6E-4B6B-902B-E8AC366CC496,DB7611A2-02CD-43AF-8147-649E26813571,frameless.htm



Those bolded parts are the important bits Rev. that in its self is jsutification for me to take this asshat out...
>

I understand you position. mine is this .
That piece of trash is not worth throwing our standards, laws and constitution in the trash to get him killed. none of the terrorist are.

[ConHog]

I understand you position. mine is this .
That piece of trash is not worth throwing our standards, laws and constitution in the trash to get him killed. none of the terrorist are.

And my position is that piece of shit forfeited his rights the moment he declared himself an enemy to this country.

[fj1200]

And my position is that piece of shit forfeited his rights the moment he declared himself an enemy to this country.

What if he were holed up in rural, sparsely-populated Arkansas? Drone strike?

[ConHog]

What if he were holed up in rural, sparsely-populated Arkansas? Drone strike?

If that piece of shit had been holed up in rural Arkansas I would have asked for my commission back so I could put a bullet in his myself.

[fj1200]

^So no constitutional protections for domestic citizens either?

[revelarts]

Con Gunny Abbey Nuke
in WW2 the there were spies raised in the U.S. -traitors- who went to train in Germany and came back to the U.S. to sabotage and assassinate U.S. citizens and destroy infrastructure.
They were caught in U-Boats, tried and punished. Should they have been simply assassinated?
Would you just pop a cap in them as well, was it wrong to try those murderous America hating traitorous scum bags nazis ?

The Precedent is set and CON is now willing to assassinate people in ARKANSAS HE THINKS or is TOLD are "terrorist."
This is 3rd world country dictatorship goon squad mentality not the American i grew up to respect.

[Gaffer]

Con Gunny Abbey Nuke
in WW2 the there were spies raised in the U.S. -traitors- who went to train in Germany and came back to the U.S. to sabotage and assassinate U.S. citizens and destroy infrastructure.
They were caught in U-Boats, tried and punished. Should they have been simply assassinated?
Would you just pop a cap in them as well, was it wrong to try those murderous America hating traitorous scum bags nazis ?

The Precedent is set and CON is now willing to assassinate people in ARKANSAS HE THINKS or is TOLD are "terrorist."
This is 3rd world country dictatorship goon squad mentality not the American i grew up to respect.

If the sub had been spotted before dropping off it's passengers it would have been sunk. So the passengers would have died without a trial because there was a war on. Better try another analogy.

[Gunny]

It was all that was necessary given your deep thinking on the subject. I didn't quote the administration only that it took 50 pages of justification to avoid having to go to Judiciary or have Congress make an actual law to address the situation. Still no one has answered why they think that an administration trying to "repeat the fall of the Roman Empire" is worthy of the power to try, convict, and carry out sentence on an American citizen; Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at that?



No, he said more than that, he was accepting of the rationale used to carry out the sentence. That, in my mind, doesn't disqualify him for POTUS because I'll argue that should be his duty as CiC, to take a hard line, but it also doesn't mean that he should be able to take action that avoids review. BTW, by what law was he executed?

In other words, you don't have an intelligent response. The Roman Empire fell when the citizens of Rome were so busy indulging their own selfish pleasures they forgot how to and lost the will to defend themselves. Kind of like people like YOU who spend all your time defending the rights of this Nation's enemies. Again quite simple ... even enough for the lamest person to grasp. Yet you're too busing preening those pointless peacock feathers you haven't figure out you've got no game.

Who was executed? Which is my damned point. Gingrich was asked a hypothetical question. Would he be willing to .... Sorry if you mis-heard, but the snippet of response I heard was he said he would be willing to carry out the sentence. His taling action that would avoid revues non sequitur.

[Gunny]

If that piece of shit had been holed up in rural Arkansas I would have asked for my commission back so I could put a bullet in his myself.

No shit.

He's a terrorist. Doesn't matter where he's born, nor where he's being a terrorist.

[Gunny]

^So no constitutional protections for domestic citizens either?

The douche-noodle was not a domestic civilian. You're trying to pull crap out of left field.

[Gunny]

If the sub had been spotted before dropping off it's passengers it would have been sunk. So the passengers would have died without a trial because there was a war on. Better try another analogy.

Good luck with that.

[revelarts]

If the sub had been spotted before dropping off it's passengers it would have been sunk. So the passengers would have died without a trial because there was a war on. Better try another analogy.


Good luck with that.


http://www.uboat.net/fates/captured.htm

List of Captured UBoats captured in various WW2 scenarios,
Seems it's important to capture when you can. Information is more important in a war than a kill many times. And Even though the UBoats personally killed allied soldiers and civilian supply ships the captains and crew manged to hold back a lust for vengeance and and do the honorable thing in a real war (which I've been told is what the war on terror is) and allow surrender. PLUS the Uboat is a WAR SHIP, AlWalaki was in a car a bit different.

[Gunny]

http://www.uboat.net/fates/captured.htm

List of Captured UBoats captured in various WW2 scenarios,
Seems it's important to capture when you can. Information is more important in a war than a kill many times. PLUS the Uboat is a WAR SHIP, AlWalaki was in a CAR a bit different.

What IS your point? All you do is whine about how bad the US is. Screw you. No one on here is saying "kill first" except you crybabies. FYI, capturing was an enemy sub was technologically to our advantage or it they would have been sunk as quick as anyone else. Quit pulling all these wild-ass exceptions out your ass and posting them like they're the rule. The fact is, whether or not you like the cold, hard facts, the mission of the US military to destroy and/or take away the enemies' capability to wage war by WHATEVER mean while cause the least casualties to ourselves.

That's not only smart, but you also forget the fuckwits that start crying about OUR casualties as if the US us is the reason they're dead.

There's NO perfect word. Get over it and get some kimwipes on those tears and grow some balls. Damned I'm sick of listening to you pussies. If you ain't entitled to what I ear, you want some anesthetic war where only the pre-judged guilty in a court of law are fair targets.

Shit doesn't work that way.

[fj1200]

In other words, you don't have an intelligent response. The Roman Empire fell when the citizens of Rome were so busy indulging their own selfish pleasures they forgot how to and lost the will to defend themselves. Kind of like people like YOU who spend all your time defending the rights of this Nation's enemies. Again quite simple ... even enough for the lamest person to grasp. Yet you're too busing preening those pointless peacock feathers you haven't figure out you've got no game.

Who was executed? Which is my damned point. Gingrich was asked a hypothetical question. Would he be willing to .... Sorry if you mis-heard, but the snippet of response I heard was he said he would be willing to carry out the sentence. His taling action that would avoid revues non sequitur.

When you're version of an intelligent response grows beyond, "terror guy bad, gun good," then I suppose we can discuss because as of this point it seems that you can't even grasp that Gingrich was asked about Awlaki specifically. The hypothetical was Gingrich being POTUS and NOT Awlaki's death warrant.


The douche-noodle was not a domestic civilian. You're trying to pull crap out of left field.

I know that you have trouble keeping up with the class but the hypothetical in question had the terrorist hiding out with Con's EPA enemy #1 neighbor. He has yet to back away from his statement that the hypothetical, domestically residing, terrorism promoting, US citizen has zero constitutional rights even while in the US.

[Gunny]

But, but, what would the ACLU do if that happened?

You mean the latest version of the American Communist Party? Who cares. Burn in Hell?

[fj1200]

If the sub had been spotted before dropping off it's passengers it would have been sunk. So the passengers would have died without a trial because there was a war on. Better try another analogy.

IIRC there was an SC case concerning a US citizen German sympathizer and whether he had any rights, or at least the right to not be shot on the battle field, during WWII. I believe they correctly decided no.

[Gunny]

When you're version of an intelligent response grows beyond, "terror guy bad, gun good," then I suppose we can discuss because as of this point it seems that you can't even grasp that Gingrich was asked about Awlaki specifically. The hypothetical was Gingrich being POTUS and NOT Awlaki's death warrant.



I know that you have trouble keeping up with the class but the hypothetical in question had the terrorist hiding out with Con's EPA enemy #1 neighbor. He has yet to back away from his statement that the hypothetical, domestically residing, terrorism promoting, US citizen has zero constitutional rights even while in the US.

Really? When YOUR version of a response grows beyond the version of "terrorist good guy, we bad guy. then I suppose we can discuss an issue. As of this point, you're just another wannabe intellectually elite apologist more concerned about our enemies' rights than ours.

Where the f*ck do you people come from? It damned sure isn't from reading and comprehending the Constitution of the US. It isn't even from anyone with an inkling of self-preservation.

The problem with democracies. It creates pussies and allows them to legislate the strong out of power.

So, in the Lyiban fable it is told, that once and eagle. when stricken with a dart, said when he saw the fashion of the shaft,by our own hands are we now smitten. Aeschylus

[fj1200]

Really? When YOUR version of a response grows beyond the version of "terrorist good guy, we bad guy. then I suppose we can discuss an issue. As of this point, you're just another wannabe intellectually elite apologist more concerned about our enemies' rights than ours.

Your idiocy is unbounded. You haven't even figured out what my argument is, though I've stated it repeatedly, so you need to make one up to make yourself feel superior.

[Gunny]

Your idiocy is unbounded. You haven't even figured out what my argument is, though I've stated it repeatedly, so you need to make one up to make yourself feel superior.

You spend a lot of parroting yourself but providing the same non-answers.

[fj1200]

You spend a lot of parroting yourself but providing the same non-answers.

Your debating skills ARE legendary...











To you.

[Gunny]

Your debating skills ARE legendary...











To you.

Y'think? I notice they're fine to people who can read and comprehend and not so much to wannabe punks.

[fj1200]

Y'think? I notice they're fine to people who can read and comprehend and not so much to wannabe punks.

Given your dubious skills of observation...

Anyway, here is some actual information on the subject:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld)

ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

On June 28, 2004, the Court ruled in two important cases challenging actions of the Bush Administration taken subsequent to the 9-11 acts of terrorism. In Hamdi v Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that Congress, in its 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, had given the President the power to declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant" and deny him a trial in federal court. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority did, however, indicate that such persons cannot be held indefinitely and were entitled to contest the determination of their status with the assistance of counsel. Justice Scalia, somewhat surprisingly dissented, arguing that the Constitution entitled Hamdi to a criminal trial. He concluded:

<small><small style="color: rgb(102, 51, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: left; "><small><small><small><small><small><small><o:p>"</o:p>The Founders well understood the difficult tradeoff between safety and freedom. "Safety from external danger," <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Hamilton</st1:place></st1:city> declared,</small></small></small></small></small></small><small><small><small><small><small><small> </small></small></small></small></small></small></small>
<small><small><small><small><small><small>"is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates.</small></small></small></small></small></small>
<small><small><small><small><small>
</small></small></small></small></small>
<small><small><small><small><small>...
Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it. Because the Court has proceeded to meet the current emergency in a manner the Constitution does not envision, I respectfully dissent. </small></small></small></small></small>
</small>
The Court in Hamdi did conclude, however, that under due process principles that citizens designated as enemy combatants were entitled to a written statement of the basis for that declaration, as well as a right to challenge it before a neutral decision-maker in a timely manner. In the other 9-11 case, Rasul v Bush, the Court ruled 6 to 3 that aliens detained in Guatanamo, Cuba had the right to challenge their detention in American courts, in part because the United States had exclusive jurisdiction and control over the base in Cuba.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

Due Process, still available to US citizens captured overseas. Imagine that.

[ConHog]

When you're version of an intelligent response grows beyond, "terror guy bad, gun good," then I suppose we can discuss because as of this point it seems that you can't even grasp that Gingrich was asked about Awlaki specifically. The hypothetical was Gingrich being POTUS and NOT Awlaki's death warrant.



I know that you have trouble keeping up with the class but the hypothetical in question had the terrorist hiding out with Con's EPA enemy #1 neighbor. He has yet to back away from his statement that the hypothetical, domestically residing, terrorism promoting, US citizen has zero constitutional rights even while in the US.

Con hadn't responded because it is a Friday night and Con had more pleasurable activities to attend to than this board. However I am here now, and in your hypothetical you setup for me, you placed Awlaki in rural Arkansas, you said nothing about some dude who broke environmental laws. Until hours later when you were trying to zing Gunny. Would I have tried to aprrehend Awlaki if he were hiding in Arkansas? I would certainly do what I was told and if my orders were to bring him in alive I would have done my best , if my orders were, and this is likely how they would have been worded, to bring him in. .I would have brought a corpse back.

FJ have you ever known anyone who has attempted to arrest someone? I have been there. it's dangerous enough in this country, 100 times so if you're going to attempt an arrest in Yeman or somewhere similar. Sorry that piece of shit isn't worth risking a SF team to arrest him.

Oh and back to your quote. Let's see a guy who robs a bank can lose some of his constitutional rights, just for example, so yes I believe a man , or woman, who has declared themselves an enemy of this nation should NOT be afforded the protections of the COTUS.

[Abbey Marie]

You mean the latest version of the American Communist Party? Who cares. Burn in Hell?

I've been calling them the Anti-Christian-Liberties Union for years.

[Abbey Marie]

Con hadn't responded because it is a Friday night and Con had more pleasurable activities to attend to than this board. However I am here now, and in your hypothetical you setup for me, you placed Awlaki in rural Arkansas, you said nothing about some dude who broke environmental laws. Until hours later when you were trying to zing Gunny. Would I have tried to aprrehend Awlaki if he were hiding in Arkansas? I would certainly do what I was told and if my orders were to bring him in alive I would have done my best , if my orders were, and this is likely how they would have been worded, to bring him in. .I would have brought a corpse back.
...


:salute:

[Gunny]

Given your dubious skills of observation...

Anyway, here is some actual information on the subject:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld)


http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

Due Process, still available to US citizens captured overseas. Imagine that.

It's all fun and games until you "I can whine(protest)" all I want pussies have to stand up face to face to the people that built this nation. The warriors. You pussies couldn't fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

[fj1200]

Con hadn't responded because it is a Friday night and Con had more pleasurable activities to attend to than this board. However I am here now, and in your hypothetical you setup for me, you placed Awlaki in rural Arkansas, you said nothing about some dude who broke environmental laws. Until hours later when you were trying to zing Gunny. Would I have tried to aprrehend Awlaki if he were hiding in Arkansas? I would certainly do what I was told and if my orders were to bring him in alive I would have done my best , if my orders were, and this is likely how they would have been worded, to bring him in. .I would have brought a corpse back.

How excellent for Con, that's much more important. And I didn't say he was breaking environmental laws, just hanging out with that anti-American, eco-terrorist, neighbor of yours... just to lighten things up you know. ;) Change the location and see if that has any bearing on his rights.


FJ have you ever known anyone who has attempted to arrest someone? I have been there. it's dangerous enough in this country, 100 times so if you're going to attempt an arrest in Yeman or somewhere similar. Sorry that piece of shit isn't worth risking a SF team to arrest him.

Oh and back to your quote. Let's see a guy who robs a bank can lose some of his constitutional rights, just for example, so yes I believe a man , or woman, who has declared themselves an enemy of this nation should NOT be afforded the protections of the COTUS.

How does a bank robber lose his rights?

[fj1200]

It's all fun and games until you "I can whine(protest)" all I want pussies have to stand up face to face to the people that built this nation. The warriors. You pussies couldn't fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

The "warriors" built this nation? Defended, sure; but built? Why would I stand up face to face to them? I honor them and their sacrifice.

[Gunny]

The "warriors" built this nation? Defended, sure; but built? Why would I stand up face to face to them? I honor them and their sacrifice.

Try again. Weak little sissies hovelled in cities then like they do now, waiting on someone else to protect them. They couldn't build shit without someone with some balls to keep their sissy little asses safe. Same as now. Only now, the strong have been legislated into silence.

I spent a lifetime defending something I believed in. Only to watch a bunch of pussies try repeatedly to tear it down. Y'all can take your panty-waist little show and fuck off.

[ConHog]

How excellent for Con, that's much more important. And I didn't say he was breaking environmental laws, just hanging out with that anti-American, eco-terrorist, neighbor of yours... just to lighten things up you know. ;) Change the location and see if that has any bearing on his rights.



How does a bank robber lose his rights?

Well, beyond the obvious loss of freedom if caught, They also lose their second amendment right to own a firearm once convicted. Do they not?

[fj1200]

Well, beyond the obvious loss of freedom if caught, They also lose their second amendment right to own a firearm once convicted. Do they not?

And they lost those "rights" via due process exactly what you are in favor of denying to some citizens.

[ConHog]

And they lost those "rights" via due process exactly what you are in favor of denying to some citizens.

I'm not in favor of any such thing. I just thing it would very hard to find a jury of mass murderers to give the guy a jury of his peers.

[fj1200]

Try again. Weak little sissies hovelled in cities then like they do now, waiting on someone else to protect them. They couldn't build shit without someone with some balls to keep their sissy little asses safe. Same as now. Only now, the strong have been legislated into silence.

Why do I need to try again? Just enough to get you going on one of your little rants.


I spent a lifetime defending something I believed in. Only to watch a bunch of pussies try repeatedly to tear it down. Y'all can take your panty-waist little show and fuck off.

So you don't believe in the constitution and its protections? Only for some I guess.

[fj1200]

I'm not in favor of any such thing. I just thing it would very hard to find a jury of mass murderers to give the guy a jury of his peers.

Happens every day if the news is to be believed.

[ConHog]

Happens every day if the news is to be believed.

I was kidding FJ, in reality, no one has a right to jury of their peers. They merely have the right to a jury. In fact , the jury part isn't specified at all in the COTUS, so in fact the POTUS could legally claim he is the jury and that would be that. But in practice he is the judge not the jury. Someone else has found him guilty and the POTUS has passed his sentence.

Seems constitutional to me.

[Gunny]

Why do I need to try again? Just enough to get you going on one of your little rants.



So you don't believe in the constitution and its protections? Only for some I guess.

Y'think? Try again. Doesn't take a rant to knock you off your pedestal. Just some common sense.

Give yourself a rest. No one is saying they are in favor denying any US citizen their Constitutional Rights. That's, just a bullshit argument pulled out of your ass. Period.

[fj1200]

Seems constitutional to me.

No.

[ConHog]

No.

tell me how it is not unconstitutional. Now I'm off for the night, but I will be back to hear your reasoning. And no , I'm not making light. I actually want to hear why you think the intelligence community judging someone as guilty of terrorism and the POTUS passing sentence on them in unconstitutional.

[fj1200]

Y'think? Try again. Doesn't take a rant to knock you off your pedestal. Just some common sense.

I'll wait for some then.


Give yourself a rest. No one is saying they are in favor denying any US citizen their Constitutional Rights. That's, just a bullshit argument pulled out of your ass. Period.

That's, what you've been in favor of this whole thread.

[fj1200]

tell me how it is not unconstitutional. Now I'm off for the night, but I will be back to hear your reasoning. And no , I'm not making light. I actually want to hear why you think the intelligence community judging someone as guilty of terrorism and the POTUS passing sentence on them in unconstitutional.

Re-read the fricking thread. :facepalm:

[logroller]

Try again. Weak little sissies hovelled in cities then like they do now, waiting on someone else to protect them. They couldn't build shit without someone with some balls to keep their sissy little asses safe. Same as now. Only now, the strong have been legislated into silence.

I spent a lifetime defending something I believed in. Only to watch a bunch of pussies try repeatedly to tear it down. Y'all can take your panty-waist little show and fuck off.

I believe everyone owes you a great deal gratitude for your honorable service; but you wouldn't have been successful in our defense without everyone contributing resources-- it's a shared success and mutually deserving of credit.

What you defended was freedom, including the freedom of little sissy-assed panty-waist shows; and I can understand how that frustrates you. But those rights we all enjoy under our Constitution are what you defended, not a particular POV as to how they apply.
In the defense of God and Country, out of necessity, the military is charged to bear true faith and follow the explicit orders from the CiC; just as citizens, we are charged with questioning those who issue those orders. Frustrating though it may be, it's a necessary check to tyranny.

[red states rule]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAqY3FdcjgjAS-BImfggDLF0oc-UJ80fiiXoI7xzlk8fQuGVf2oif1j_xc

[revelarts]

At this point the President/s can and have

ease dropped - without warrants, or a judges review
detained/jailed - without due process- or indictment
tortured - without due process- or indictment
killed - without due process- or indictment
U.S. citizens

add on top of that the POTUS has assumed full authority to
Declare wars - without congress
which means he can do any of the above including kill any non US citizens he declares a threat.

add to the argument some have made that "we are at war" therefore the President has the right under the War Powers clause to do anything,
and what does the constitution have left to say to the president?

It seems the one that's been freed since 9-11 is the President and the executive branch of gov't, free from any restraints or accountability whatsoever.

[ConHog]

At this point the President/s can and have

ease dropped - without warrants, or a judges review
detained/jailed - without due process- or indictment
tortured - without due process- or indictment
killed - without due process- or indictment
U.S. citizens

add on top of that the POTUS has assumed full authority to
Declare wars - without congress
which means he can do any of the above including kill any non US citizens he declares a threat.

add to the argument some have made that "we are at war" therefore the President has the right under the War Powers clause to do anything,
and what does the constitution have left to say to the president?

It seems the one that's been freed since 9-11 is the President and the executive branch of gov't, free from any restraints or accountability whatsoever.


Let's just focus on one incorrect statement of yours at a time, shall we.

The POTUS has NOT ever declared war without Congressional approval. Calling it a war on terror is a useful euphemism and nothing more. Or do you suggest Bush also illegally declared war on drugs ? LOL

[revelarts]

Let's just focus on one incorrect statement of yours at a time, shall we.

The POTUS has NOT ever declared war without Congressional approval. Calling it a war on terror is a useful euphemism and nothing more. Or do you suggest Bush also illegally declared war on drugs ? LOL

Libya

[jimnyc]

Libya

I honestly don't know, but did Obama declare war on Libya? Can you link me to this?

[jimnyc]

Libya


I honestly don't know, but did Obama declare war on Libya? Can you link me to this?

It appears war was never declared with Libya but rather "Military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress".

Here is a list of formally declared wars. Libya is on par with the Korean war, Gulf war, and a handful of others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

[revelarts]

It appears war was never declared with Libya but rather "Military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress".

Here is a list of formally declared wars. Libya is on par with the Korean war, Gulf war, and a handful of others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
We've talked about this before, Libya is unique in that Congress never authorized ANYTHING as far a Libya is concerned. All of the others you mentioned at least had some congressional rubber stamp. there are other "military actions" that fall under the suspect 60 day rule. but obama set precendent by unilaterally, by his lonesome bombing a country into submission without any pass by congress.

Declare war, why declare war? it's just another legal technicality that he ignored but he did feigned justification from the united nations. But last i checked the united nations didn't authorize wars for the U.S. military either, neither does NATO. No, Obama made the real call. No admiral or ship would have moved without his order period.

2011 June congressional..." representatives voted overwhelmingly to deny President Obama authority to continue US participation in the operation in Libya, but rejected a bid to cut off money for the conflict. President Obama says he does not need additional congressional approval, as US forces are simply supporting Nato..."


http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2011/06/23/obama-war-powers-and-libya-justice-dept-takes-a-beating/


...President Obama brushed aside his top legal adviser in reaching the, uh, counterintuitive conclusion that the Libyan bombing campaign does not constitute “hostilities” that require congressional approval. Under the War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, a president who engages in military hostilities unilaterally, because of some perceived threat to the nation’s security, must order a halt unless Congress authorizes them within 60 days. As the New York Times’ Charlie Savage reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html) Caroline Krass, acting director of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, found that the War Powers Act applied to U.S. involvement in the bombing and drone attacks against Libya’s leader, Moammar Khadafy, that started in March. Krass’s boss, Attorney General Eric Holder, agreed, as did the Pentagon’s chief counsel, Jeh Johnson.
Krass’s office, the OLC, with two dozen lawyers, normally has the last word on legal disputes within an administration, and is rarely overridden by any president. But Obama instead went with interpretations by his own White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department’s chief counsel, Harold Koh, who reasoned that the conflict doesn’t amount to “hostilities” because no U.S. ground troops are involved, and U.S. forces are in little danger of encountering hostile fire or sustaining casualties.

What’s more, the Times reported, Obama reshuffled the legal deck this time. Instead of assigning the OLC to its usual task of gathering and evaluating views from other agencies and presenting a definitive legal opinion to the White House, the president merely requested Krass’s perspective as one among many, a process that made it easier for him to find an opinion he preferred....




No no danger a president might kill any one he thinks fits a legal description he prefers, the secret advisers know best.

Dictatorial powers

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sCaf3n3n86U?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sCaf3n3n86U?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[jimnyc]

We've talked about this before, Libya is unique in that Congress never authorized ANYTHING as far a Libya is concerned. All of the others you mentioned at least had some congressional rubber stamp. there are other "military actions" that fall under the suspect 60 day rule. but obama set precendent by unilaterally, by his lonesome bombing a country into submission without any pass by congress.

It appears from the link that I sent you that it was on par with the Korean War. Are you stating that Truman declared war unlawfully? And Bush 1st in Iraq? And Carter and Reagan in Lebanon? Clinton in Bosnia? All of them based off of UN resolutions and NONE of them via authorization from congress - yet each and every one of them funded by congress.

[jimnyc]

We've talked about this before, Libya is unique in that Congress never authorized ANYTHING as far a Libya is concerned.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"></object>

Btw - that statement is incorrect in the fact that congress authorized funding. If the majority were so against it, they shouldn't have funded it. Sounds like an indirect authorization to me.

[revelarts]

Jim I stand corrected, your right, Korea and Bosnia do fit the bill of completely unauthorized and unconstitutional. I should have remembered Bosnia, I was against that when Clinton did it.

Obama's action may not be the 1st but it's still Unconstitutional. And part of the dictatorial package i mentioned above.

Congress is weak, how do you vote AGAINST authorization and FOR funding. They are weak and won't take a stand so they play both sides.