ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1819
Oct 1 11 8:36 AM
APKeaton wrote: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.
Interact
Posts: 1938
Oct 1 11 9:34 AM
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.
Endless days of low ceilings and nasty crosswinds makes Chicken Little something something.
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?
Posts: 1003
Oct 1 11 11:48 AM
Posts: 4344
Oct 1 11 4:49 PM
Oct 1 11 6:21 PM
Oct 1 11 7:24 PM
Oct 2 11 5:12 AM
Oct 2 11 6:03 AM
Oct 2 11 8:06 AM
Regulus de Leo wrote:You mean like "Islamophobia" is a made up word?
Oct 2 11 8:23 AM
Oct 2 11 9:05 AM
APKeaton wrote:Obviously he had to kill a citizen to do that this time, but he did so with authorization from the US National Security Council and the judicial and legislative branches of the government. The judicial branch had dismissed a case that was brought forward to prevent the targetted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. The legislative branch had passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Agaisnt Terrorists" Act. Although this was a superfluous and uncessary move by the legislative branch in this case as al-Awlaki is clearly a combatant engaged in an armed struggle agaisnt the USA. Under domestic and international law, the USA has a duty and a right to engage al-Awlaki in military combat.
“I’m a huge fan of executive power, but if someone came up to you and said the government wants to target you and you can’t even talk about it in court to try to stop it, that’s too harsh even for me.”
Oct 2 11 12:48 PM
TAPPER: Is there going to be any evidence presented?CARNEY: You know, I don’t have anything for you on that.
Posts: 4635
Oct 2 11 4:19 PM
Oct 2 11 8:32 PM
Islamist != Islaimicized. TWEET. Regulus de Leo wrote:The President is putting down an extra-territorial insurrecton of Islaimicized US Citizens who state openly that they are waging jihad, Holy War, against the US. This is one of the very few things Obama has done right.
Oct 7 11 3:13 AM
(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials. There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
Oct 7 11 9:03 AM
Wobblie wrote: I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that the US has not descended into totalitarian government. Seriously, what now differentiates the US legal system from those countries the US loves to complain about like Iran, Zimbabwe, etc.
Posts: 4456
Oct 7 11 9:45 AM
Apr 4 12 1:10 PM
Feb 11 13 9:50 PM
commie wrote:The Americans are now one step removed from allowing the president to order the assassination of citizens within US borders.
The man whom the administration has put up to head the CIA would not say whether or not the president of the United States has the power to order the extrajudicial killing of a United States citizen within the borders of the United States... And the hearing, remarkably, went on as though nothing untoward had happened.
Share This