ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1306
Oct 1 11 9:54 AM
ChickenLittle wrote:APKeaton wrote: ChickenLittle wrote: APKeaton wrote: Wobblie wrote: Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.Either way it's a "red herring" (now that we are using poly-sci terms about arguments to settle things around here). President Obama has taken an oath to protect the USA from external and internal threats. Al Queda is both. Obama has a duty as president of America to hunt down Al Queda and execute them. Obviously they have to do that within certain boundaries, but a targetted strike on a major commander with no collateral damage certainly fits within those boundaries.Ummm...no."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."If you'd actually bothered to read the constitution you'd see that Article II creates a duty to protect the security of the citizens of the USA. That means attacking military combatants wishing to do them harm. Although in this case it meant attacking someone who happened to be a citizen, the overall security of the USA and its citizens is vastly vastly improved by removing Al Queda and its commanders.If there is issue about whether this guy was actually a commander, that is for the judiciary to decide. However, I doubt there is any issue with that. You people act like there was no due process here at all and Obama was acting like some kind of rogue. al-Awlaki had been on a targetted killing list for years. There have been several applications brought before various branches of the judicary concerning al-awlaki and the targetting killing list in general. All have failed. It has been determined that Obama does have the right to target members of Al-Queda as miltary combatants both under the regular rules of war and under the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Agaisnt Terrorists" Act, where the rules of war were debated in the context of terrorism specifically.Once again, this is no different than in WWI and WWII when thousands of Germans and Italians returned to the "motherland" to fight against the allied powers.If you had actually read the Constitution, you would have known what the text of the oath taken by the President actually says. I hate to get too technical about this, but isn't a bit late for the judiciary to decide anything in respect of this guy?
APKeaton wrote: ChickenLittle wrote: APKeaton wrote: Wobblie wrote: Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.Either way it's a "red herring" (now that we are using poly-sci terms about arguments to settle things around here). President Obama has taken an oath to protect the USA from external and internal threats. Al Queda is both. Obama has a duty as president of America to hunt down Al Queda and execute them. Obviously they have to do that within certain boundaries, but a targetted strike on a major commander with no collateral damage certainly fits within those boundaries.Ummm...no."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."If you'd actually bothered to read the constitution you'd see that Article II creates a duty to protect the security of the citizens of the USA. That means attacking military combatants wishing to do them harm. Although in this case it meant attacking someone who happened to be a citizen, the overall security of the USA and its citizens is vastly vastly improved by removing Al Queda and its commanders.If there is issue about whether this guy was actually a commander, that is for the judiciary to decide. However, I doubt there is any issue with that. You people act like there was no due process here at all and Obama was acting like some kind of rogue. al-Awlaki had been on a targetted killing list for years. There have been several applications brought before various branches of the judicary concerning al-awlaki and the targetting killing list in general. All have failed. It has been determined that Obama does have the right to target members of Al-Queda as miltary combatants both under the regular rules of war and under the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Agaisnt Terrorists" Act, where the rules of war were debated in the context of terrorism specifically.Once again, this is no different than in WWI and WWII when thousands of Germans and Italians returned to the "motherland" to fight against the allied powers.
ChickenLittle wrote: APKeaton wrote: Wobblie wrote: Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.Either way it's a "red herring" (now that we are using poly-sci terms about arguments to settle things around here). President Obama has taken an oath to protect the USA from external and internal threats. Al Queda is both. Obama has a duty as president of America to hunt down Al Queda and execute them. Obviously they have to do that within certain boundaries, but a targetted strike on a major commander with no collateral damage certainly fits within those boundaries.Ummm...no."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
APKeaton wrote: Wobblie wrote: Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.Either way it's a "red herring" (now that we are using poly-sci terms about arguments to settle things around here). President Obama has taken an oath to protect the USA from external and internal threats. Al Queda is both. Obama has a duty as president of America to hunt down Al Queda and execute them. Obviously they have to do that within certain boundaries, but a targetted strike on a major commander with no collateral damage certainly fits within those boundaries.
Wobblie wrote: Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.
Interact
Share This