Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[Truthmatters]

ANNOUNCEMENT: Red Herring being served at the Sushi Bar

read what it is you pretend to know you are speaking about:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

So then, you CAN'T show any hits on Americans ordered by Bush...

Got it.

Prove he did not use this power?


prove he outlined a power and then never used it.


remember how many times they lied to us?

 

[NoNukes]

Without due process, without evidence, without even suspicion of wrongdoing.

This is not what the memo says. And look at all of the idiots agreeing with her.

 

[Bigfoot]

Every time these Liberals start loosing an argument they always come out with the name calling. Didn't we used to get in trouble for that when we were kids? ~shrug~

 

[NoNukes]

No one has ever before said that they had the right to kill an American Citizen anywhere in the world without judicial process simply because they, by themselves, felt that someone was a danger to the Country.

That is until Obama became President.

Another lie.

 

[Bigfoot]

The US Central Intelligence Agency has been operating a secret airbase for unmanned drones in Saudi Arabia for the past two years.

The facility was established to hunt for members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is based in Yemen.

A drone flown from there was used in September 2011 to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born cleric who was alleged to be AQAP's external operations chief.

US media have known of its existence since then, but have not reported it.

Senior government officials had said they were concerned that disclosure would undermine operations against AQAP, as well as potentially damage counter-terrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia.

'High-value targets'

BBC News - CIA operating drone base in Saudi Arabia, US media reveal

 

[Truthmatters]

Jessica Lynch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


remember the Bush admin lying about this woman

 

[Truthmatters]

Pat Tillman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


remember how Bush lied about this guy?

 

[Truthmatters]

Bush never told us about the people he killed.

Thaat doesnt make them less dead

 

[Mr. Shaman]

He's an alleged terrorist. We have due process for these things to properly label someone an enemy. Just because the leader of your favorite religion (statism) told you he was the bad guy, doesn't necessairly make it so.

I suppose his 16 yr old son got what he deserved too, right? Being the son of an alleged terrorist and all. Fucking dumb fuck.

A lil' selective-outrage, huh??


​

 

[NoNukes]

You people were pretty excited about the prospect of bombing the fuck out of any Americans who went to Iraq as human shields,

or have you forgotten?

They went to an active combat zone and put themselves in harm's way.

If they got killed, it wasn't that the President issued secret "Kill on Sight" orders, it was that they put themselves in the middle of a war.


It was easy to kill that Strawman.

The Strawman stuff is old and shows that you have no original thoughts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any Americans who go as shields are in harm's way by their own choice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Prove he did not use this power?

I realize you never quite made it to 4th grade, but...

{A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. }

Negative proof - RationalWiki

Moron.

prove he outlined a power and then never used it.

Prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, moron.

remember how many times they lied to us?

Irrelevant to Obama ordering the murder or a United States Citizen.

Look, you and Jakematters are both far too stupid to grasp even rudimentary concepts of liberty, but one of the ills that Jefferson and Payne wrote extensively about is corruption of blood. Under the monarchy, a son could be executed for the crimes of his father. America was founded expressly rejecting barbaric notions of corruption of blood. But Obama has brought it back, murdering a 16 year old American citizens purely based on who his father was.

 

[Sallow]

And this is what it comes down to with you folks.

Yes, it is. It comes down to those who support the Constitution of the United States, and those like you, following Obama, who seek a more authoritarian state with a strong ruler who is not encumbered by concepts of legality or civil rights.

It's the person you don't like..not the the underlying powers.

Which is why having a discussion with you folks is pretty impossible.

Hyperbole and bullshit. That's your bag o tricks.

In fact it is exactly the violation of law that is the issue. You worship Obama as a god, to me he is but a two bit thug, pissing on the constitution - which makes you smile.

No.

It's not the violation of the law.

And that's the point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No.

It's not the violation of the law.

And that's the point.

While I grasp that you of the left have utter contempt for the constitution, the fact is that it remains the supreme law of the land. A white paper does not have the power to render the constitution null and void, even if our current ruler ignores said constitution.

So yes, it is a violation of the law, a violation of the United States Constitution.

And you wonder why those who still support constitutional governance feel the need to arm ourselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . .you and Jakematters are both far too stupid to grasp even rudimentary concepts of liberty, but one of the ills that Jefferson and Payne wrote extensively about is corruption of blood. Under the monarchy, a son could be executed for the crimes of his father. America was founded expressly rejecting barbaric notions of corruption of blood. But Obama has brought it back, murdering a 16 year old American citizens purely based on who his father was.

You dare soil Jefferson's doctrine with the misreading of the father who used his son as a human shield? No wonder your rantings will never be accepted by the American people.

 

[Liability]

Let's pick a name at random. It need not be a real person for the sake of this example. Let's call the guy "Al."

Al is a U.S. born American citizen who at some point finds Islam. He later embraces Islam and one of its most radical sects. He becomes a militant. Al grows to hate the U.S.A. with a burning passion. Who cares why?

Al joins al qaeda. Al advances in al qaeda. His career path takes him into the upper echelon of al qaeda. There, with others of similar ilk, he actively plans and plots to attack America and Americans and American interest with deadly force.

The U.S. military and intelligence forces "find" the guy and intercept some of his communications and come to the realization that he is actively planning some imminent attack against some of our military forces. We happen to be at war with al qaeda and they certainly consider themselves to be at war with us.

Let's get down to it. What is the U.S. military supposed to do with this intel?

Is it actually the case that the military, the President and his Administration, is obliged to submit the evidence against "Al" to some robed person in the Judicial Branch? Why?

Let's say that out of an abundance of caution, that is the path the President chooses to take. He goes to some Court (possibly doing it on a secret basis, like back in chambers with a sealed record?) and lays out the intel. No cross examination? No right of Al to be heard? Or maybe there must be? That would kind of blow the State Secret out of the water, wouldn't it?

For now let's say that it is not the "kind" of judicial proceeding that Al has to be invited to participate in. But even without a defense attorney speaking for his side, the Judge concludes that the intel is too sketchy. Maybe he's right, but maybe he's just got his head up his ass. The point is, who gave any judge a say in how the President conducts the war?

Is the President now BOUND to do nothing? Hm. What does "Al" now do? Left to his own devices, he proceeds with his plot and the orders go out and in some way that the intel had not yet scoped out, he and his "troops" commit his planned attack. Lots of dead Americans. But, THANK GOD, the notion of "due process" has been revered and all.

Right?

It depends on what country it is.

If the country is the United States as it was under that old Constitution, then the president has the CIA pick "Al" up and bring him in for a trial. If Al resists, he might die, but the order given is to arrest, not to murder.

If the country is under Obamunist rule, then of course assassins are dispatched to kill Al, no questions asked.

So it is your contention that if Al is overseas and engaged in plots or acts of war against us in time of war, he can be sanctioned?

But if he does the same thing HERE, then he has to be treated as though all he's doing is engaging in some mere criminal behavior?

Or maybe I am not understanding your answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No.

It's not the violation of the law.

And that's the point.

While I grasp that you of the left have utter contempt for the constitution, the fact is that it remains the supreme law of the land. A white paper does not have the power to render the constitution null and void, even if our current ruler ignores said constitution.

So yes, it is a violation of the law, a violation of the United States Constitution.

And you wonder why those who still support constitutional governance feel the need to arm ourselves.

If you had bothered to read the white paper, you will see the court decisions and precedents that support this action.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No.

It's not the violation of the law.

And that's the point.

While I grasp that you of the left have utter contempt for the constitution, the fact is that it remains the supreme law of the land. A white paper does not have the power to render the constitution null and void, even if our current ruler ignores said constitution.

So yes, it is a violation of the law, a violation of the United States Constitution.

And you wonder why those who still support constitutional governance feel the need to arm ourselves.

If you had bothered to read the white paper, you will see the court decisions and precedents that support this action.

Uncensored is driven off balance by his hatred for this administration.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You dare soil Jefferson's doctrine with the misreading of the father who used his son as a human shield? No wonder your rantings will never be accepted by the American people.

No one has EVER suggested the son was used as a human shield, you're just making up absurd lies to cover for your little tin god.

Crawl back to Communist Dreams, troll.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So it is your contention that if Al is overseas and engaged in plots or acts of war against us in time of war, he can be sanctioned?

Of course not, that is absurd.

We used to be a nation of laws. If those laws are violated, we have a system of justice to deal with them. I oppose the banana republic we've become with this tin horn pile of shit dictator who ignores the constitution and kills as he pleases.

IF an American is in a combat zone while an operation is underway and is killed, bummer. BUT the deliberate targeting of American citizens in nations we are NOT at war with (unless we declared war on Yemen and no one told me) is simple murder. Obama is a murderer and should be impeached.

But if he does the same thing HERE, then he has to be treated as though all he's doing is engaging in some mere criminal behavior?

Or maybe I am not understanding your answer.

My answer is simple, under the constitution, all are bound by the law, even Dear Leader is restrained by 5th and 14th amendment prohibitions to kill citizens sans due process.

The correct course of action is to impeach Obama and put him on trial for murder.