GOODBYE 6th Amendment!

[Murhy]

Your PRESIDENT just said that your Constitution only applies most of the time. What about the sixth amendment? Laws only apply when they are convienent, and when they arent any more, no big deal. CHANGE.

The 6th amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions. Have you ever actually read it? Eliminating military targets is not a criminal prosecution.[/QUOTE]

I have!

The Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

hmm.........................

 

[g5000]

Don't worry, folks. As soon as the next big terror attack happens, all these people with their fauxBama rage will get right in the head again. They'll be screaming for Patriot Act II: This Time We REALLY Mean Business.

Meter maids waterboarding double parkers. No habeas corpus for Democrats. Carpet bombing Pakistani nursery schools.

Then another Democrat will be elected and they'll be all, like, "Hey, this guy hates the Constitution!"

It's a clown show. Retards on rampage.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

As Delivered: Obama?s Speech on Terrorism - Washington Wire - WSJ

No, repsect for rule of law should force the president to follow the Constitution.

That's why we have one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you think the Consitution should protect a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd from a SWAT team?

You're right it's not left or right, as I said I would expect even a Republcian president to take the same measure to protect Americans.

Of course not. Innocent until proven guilty. If a person is in the act of shooting people in the face, shoot him in the face. Guilty. But if we THINK he is GOING to shoot people in the face....not guilty yet, at least not until it is proven...in a Court of law. Thats why the Court of law is there in the first place. right?

Sure, we arrest on conspiracy charges all of the time. If a person does not surrender, then he is subject to the full force of the law.

 

[Darkwind]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."



The point IS that he Sounded VERY clear. The point isn't that this guy deserved to die NOR that is was for the greater good. The point is that our constitution might as well not exist. But it DOES. And it is no longer used to create order, but to be MANIPULATED by the people who CAN to suit THEIR needs. The issue isn't a left or right issue. It is a how can this be done by ANYONE and it be acceptable.

So you think the Consitution should protect a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd from a SWAT team?

You're right it's not left or right, as I said I would expect even a Republcian president to take the same measure to protect Americans.

Do you even understand the difference between an immediate need to protect innocent lives, and the deliberative process of deciding where, how, and who will be targeted by the government?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whoever wrote "Do you even understand the difference between an immediate need to protect innocent lives, and the deliberative process of deciding where, how, and who will be targeted by the government?" clearly does not understand the problem.

 

[Murhy]

So you think the Consitution should protect a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd from a SWAT team?

You're right it's not left or right, as I said I would expect even a Republcian president to take the same measure to protect Americans.

Do you even understand the difference between an immediate need to protect innocent lives, and the deliberative process of deciding where, how, and who will be targeted by the government?

Well said....I guess thats why a drone is on its way to Kim Jung Un's doorstep right now. What exactly defines an immediate need?

 

[Murhy]

Oh....just to clarify...Kim Jung Un is the guy that has directly threatened the United States with nuclear war.

 

[Darkwind]

Do you even understand the difference between an immediate need to protect innocent lives, and the deliberative process of deciding where, how, and who will be targeted by the government?

Well said....I guess thats why a drone is on its way to Kim Jung Un's doorstep right now. What exactly defines an immediate need?

I thought I made that pretty clear. Immediate means 'right this very second'.

Using the example given, if a sniper is killing people from a bell tower, that IS an immediate need.

Using your example, that is a deliberative process. People gather and discuss whether or not to use a drone, how to use it, and who will be the target. To come to the decision to target an American, (whether or not he is abroad or on our soil) is a deliberative process. That means that the government is limited in its actions and must meet certain steps prior to just killing an American.

I am not saying that they can't in a time of war, but I AM saying that they have to follow the rules, and those rules are set forth by the Constitution.

The President is, as usual, dead wrong.

 

[Darkwind]

Oh....just to clarify...Kim Jung Un is the guy that has directly threatened the United States with nuclear war.

You do realize that when the 'Un-son' makes threats that are physically imposible for him to carry out, it does not constitute an immediate threat, right?

 

[Murhy]

Oh....just to clarify...Kim Jung Un is the guy that has directly threatened the United States with nuclear war.

You do realize that when the 'Un-son' makes threats that are physically imposible for him to carry out, it does not constitute an immediate threat, right?

First of all, from what we have been TOLD, North Korea cant hit us with missiles right now. It is clear that we as normal every day citizens dont quite always know whats going on.

What we do know is that North Korea has missile silos, which is cool, because we can watch them with our satellites and intercept the missiles if they come our way.

We also know that North Korea has around 200 MOBILE missile launchers, and our satellites cant reliably track them.

Now given that this statement was made,

“We do not hide that a variety of satellites and long-range rockets which will be launched by the DPRK one after another and a nuclear test of higher level which will be carried out by it in the upcoming all-out action, a new phase of the anti-U.S. struggle that has lasted century after century, will target against the U.S., the sworn enemy of the Korean people,” the statement reads. “Settling accounts with the U.S. needs to be done with force, not with words as it regards jungle law as the rule of its survival.”

They arent hiding in mountatins, they are telling us that they want to kill us. To our face. But its impossible...our administration told us so..dont worry about it.

 

[OKTexas]

Well said....I guess thats why a drone is on its way to Kim Jung Un's doorstep right now. What exactly defines an immediate need?

I thought I made that pretty clear. Immediate means 'right this very second'.

Using the example given, if a sniper is killing people from a bell tower, that IS an immediate need.

Using your example, that is a deliberative process. People gather and discuss whether or not to use a drone, how to use it, and who will be the target. To come to the decision to target an American, (whether or not he is abroad or on our soil) is a deliberative process. That means that the government is limited in its actions and must meet certain steps prior to just killing an American.

I am not saying that they can't in a time of war, but I AM saying that they have to follow the rules, and those rules are set forth by the Constitution.

The President is, as usual, dead wrong.

What is about a congressional authorization for use of force do you not understand. Enemy combatants can be engaged, who ever or where ever they are, under that authorization, I see no constitutional conflict. By your standards the American captured on the battle field in Afghanistan would have had his rights violated had he been killed instead of being captured. It's time to let some common sense prevail here.

 

[Murhy]

I thought I made that pretty clear. Immediate means 'right this very second'.

Using the example given, if a sniper is killing people from a bell tower, that IS an immediate need.

Using your example, that is a deliberative process. People gather and discuss whether or not to use a drone, how to use it, and who will be the target. To come to the decision to target an American, (whether or not he is abroad or on our soil) is a deliberative process. That means that the government is limited in its actions and must meet certain steps prior to just killing an American.

I am not saying that they can't in a time of war, but I AM saying that they have to follow the rules, and those rules are set forth by the Constitution.

The President is, as usual, dead wrong.

What is about a congressional authorization for use of force do you not understand. Enemy combatants can be engaged, who ever or where ever they are, under that authorization, I see no constitutional conflict. By your standards the American captured on the battle field in Afghanistan would have had his rights violated had he been killed instead of being captured. It's time to let some common sense prevail here.

My question isnt whether its right or wrong, my question is where does it stop. Where is the line. Is there a line? If there is one does it matter if we cross it? If we cross it are there consequences? If there are no consequences then why should the line even be there? Our constitution is the line. We stepped over it. We crossed the line, for maybe even a good reason. But all the same, we crossed the line. We did. Now the question is how far over it are we allowed to go?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well said....I guess thats why a drone is on its way to Kim Jung Un's doorstep right now. What exactly defines an immediate need?

I thought I made that pretty clear. Immediate means 'right this very second'.

Using the example given, if a sniper is killing people from a bell tower, that IS an immediate need.

Using your example, that is a deliberative process. People gather and discuss whether or not to use a drone, how to use it, and who will be the target. To come to the decision to target an American, (whether or not he is abroad or on our soil) is a deliberative process. That means that the government is limited in its actions and must meet certain steps prior to just killing an American.

I am not saying that they can't in a time of war, but I AM saying that they have to follow the rules, and those rules are set forth by the Constitution.

The President is, as usual, dead wrong.

On this issue, the president is clearly within the frame work of the Constitution and in his role of commander in chief. If you are in Yemen or Pakistan and broadcasting on behalf of the enemy and beyond the effective range of capture by American forces, you are then ipso facto drone feed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"But all the same, we crossed the line."

No one has crossed any line with the use of drones. None. Not even a little bit.

This is an issue of technology, not constitutionality

 

[OKTexas]

What is about a congressional authorization for use of force do you not understand. Enemy combatants can be engaged, who ever or where ever they are, under that authorization, I see no constitutional conflict. By your standards the American captured on the battle field in Afghanistan would have had his rights violated had he been killed instead of being captured. It's time to let some common sense prevail here.

My question isnt whether its right or wrong, my question is where does it stop. Where is the line. Is there a line? If there is one does it matter if we cross it? If we cross it are there consequences? If there are no consequences then why should the line even be there? Our constitution is the line. We stepped over it. We crossed the line, for maybe even a good reason. But all the same, we crossed the line. We did. Now the question is how far over it are we allowed to go?

Your contention that we crossed a constitutional line is incorrect. The administration killed enemy combatants, which they were authorized by congress to do, that were actively waging war from Yemen, citizenship is irrelevant.

 

[Murhy]

"But all the same, we crossed the line."

No one has crossed any line with the use of drones. None. Not even a little bit.

This is an issue of technology, not constitutionality

When was the last time that Americans killed Americans?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas is correct in principle, but I would ground BHO's authority on this issue as commander in chief in time of war. It is nice to have a force resolution from Congress, but for this type of situation, I don't think the law requires a special recognition and authorization.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

As Delivered: Obama?s Speech on Terrorism - Washington Wire - WSJ

Which explains why he blew those 4 Americans up, because they were actually involved in a sniper type situation where the their deaths prevented a clear and present danger.

In other words, he really doesn't believe what he said, and wouldn't actually be taking that position unless Rand had actually united both sides of the aisle with that little stunt you thought was a complete waste of time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"But all the same, we crossed the line."

No one has crossed any line with the use of drones. None. Not even a little bit.

This is an issue of technology, not constitutionality

When was the last time that Americans killed Americans?

Probably two minutes ago. But if you mean in time of war, your question is immaterial.

If a person wages war against the USA, then s/he is treated as an enemy combatant. No special authorization is required. That is a liberal namby pamby argument.