Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.
U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes
That is all it should take to prove to you that Obama is wrong.
You are wrong, not either of the presidents. If you deliberately place yourself beyond the reach of the normal avenues of justice, then wage war against the USA, you are drone feed.
"Due process" has ZERO to do with it. Due process is applicable to lots of things, but NOT enemies in time of war.
Why does Obama insist that he is using due process?
But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.
Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.
The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.
The question, therefore, isnt a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted and we likely never will have such a ruling.
You are the guy that says the Supreme Court is the final say on the Constitution, feel free to cite any case where they said due process does not involve the judicial branch.
Non sequitur.
"Due process" has ZERO to do with it. Due process is applicable to lots of things, but NOT enemies in time of war.
Why does Obama insist that he is using due process?
He's a dishonest hack schmuck?
Feel free to cite the paragraph in the paper that proves me wrong.
Here is a link to make it easier for you.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Never thought I'd live to see the day, when a libertarian would referenced MSNBC.
I reference anyone that helps me make my point.
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.
Basically yeah.
He has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation.
The US will be over.
Uncensored is driven off balance by his hatred for this administration.
Basically yeah.
He has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation.
The US will be over.
It has already happened. Twice. You fail in all respects.
Gibbs is right and you are wrong.
QWB, you are defending terrorists and terrorism.
Let me see if I understand your position.
Because I oppose using drones that kill people on our side of the argument who are speaking out against terrorism and radical Islamism that means I support terrorism and radical Islam.
Gotta admit it takes a FakeStarkey to say that without smashing the computer keyboard in a bout of self immolation.
The truth is harsh on you, QWB. No one said that you support terrorism here or that being anti-government is terrorist. But you do support terrorism if you argue that the government is wrong to use drones against those who put themselves beyond the reach of the normal avenues of US justice. Yes, such folks are drone feed.
You are incapable of basic reading comprehension. Which I already knew, you having proven it many times.
Uncensored is driven off balance by his hatred for this administration.
Basically yeah.
He has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation.
The US will be over.
It has already happened. Twice. You fail in all respects.
Never thought I'd live to see the day, when a libertarian would referenced MSNBC.
I reference anyone that helps me make my point.
Must be nice to be right all the time. In your world, allies, and countrymen, are not killed. In the reality of war, it happens all the time.
Do you know what those "forward". Bases really are?... Cheese for the mice. I've been on a couple of them, and it does call into question just how much your own side cares about you. Disconcerting, to say the least.
You are incapable of basic reading comprehension. Which I already knew, you having proven it many times.
Obviously what he was saying is not that there have been no president impeached and brought to trial or that a president was forced to leave office, what he meant was if THIS president is impeached for his crimes then that will be the end of America. Clear as mud.
You are incapable of basic reading comprehension. Which I already knew, you having proven it many times.
Obviously what he was saying is not that there have been no president impeached and brought to trial or that a president was forced to leave office, what he meant was if THIS president is impeached for his crimes then that will be the end of America. Clear as mud.
There have been a total of 2 Presidents impeached in this country. Both Democrats.
And both times it was done as a partisan measure to undo the popular election. They underlying "crimes" the Presidents were impeached for, were, trivial.
Now..had those Presidents been removed from office, then tried, then convicted, then put into jail..it would be seen as a usurpation.
Which would spell the end of the way this country peacefully transfers power.
That clear?
Not a particularly accurate definition, but even with that, Obama denied due process when he ordered the assassination of American citizens.
You've joined forces with the enemy. You spend your days here arguing against constitutional government and advocating for a totalitarian system.
Does that mean that the next Republican president would be right to order you killed on the spot?
Just like you, Al-Awliki was a demagogue. He put out propaganda and incited ant-American hatred. There is no evidence he ever fired a shot at Americans, engaged in any terrorist act, or did anything other than make videos.
Bullshit.
He was involved in several plots including the mass shooting at fort hood and the attempted bombing of times square.
Anwar al-Awlaki?s Suspected Ties to Terror Plots - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
If he was "innocent" he never should have left the US and turned himself over to authorities.
If that is true you should have no problem pointing to a guilty verdict that was handed down in court. Failing that, you can always point to the evidence that Obama released to justify his decision.
I reference anyone that helps me make my point.
Must be nice to be right all the time. In your world, allies, and countrymen, are not killed. In the reality of war, it happens all the time.
Do you know what those "forward". Bases really are?... Cheese for the mice. I've been on a couple of them, and it does call into question just how much your own side cares about you. Disconcerting, to say the least.
What a devastating blow to my ego.
Basically yeah.
He has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation.
The US will be over.
It has already happened. Twice. You fail in all respects.
Well no.
But okay.
Bullshit.
He was involved in several plots including the mass shooting at fort hood and the attempted bombing of times square.
Anwar al-Awlaki?s Suspected Ties to Terror Plots - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
If he was "innocent" he never should have left the US and turned himself over to authorities.
If that is true you should have no problem pointing to a guilty verdict that was handed down in court. Failing that, you can always point to the evidence that Obama released to justify his decision.
As soon as you point out where every person suspected of a crime has had a trial.
Or for that matter, every enemy combatant. Or adversary in war.
