Another one bites the dust...

[bigg cheese]

You're right, who needs laws when I can play judge jury and executioner for an american citizen?

 

[CarmelHP]

You're right, who needs laws when I can play judge jury and executioner for an american citizen?

You can't, in this situation the President, empowered by Congress can, we have a specific court case that considered his situation that says so. Just because you don't like that fact does not make it unconstitutional. The judge, empowered by the Constitution, decided it's up to the President based on the law and the fact the subject placing himself outside the jurisdictional reach of U.S. law. He was traveling with, assisting, recruiting for, and giving aid to what the Constitutionally empowered Congress determined to military enemy combatants against the United States. That not being good enough for you is not the Constitution's problem or our problem, it's your problem.

 

[bigg cheese]

The judge only said that the courts didn't have jurisdiction, nothing about whether or not what the president was planning was constitutional.

 

[CarmelHP]

The judge only said that the courts didn't have jurisdiction, nothing about whether or not what the president was planning was constitutional.

He said the courts don't have jurisdiction because IT'S SOLELY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. You didn't read it or you would know that, you obviously don't really care anything about the legal issues as you pretend. You just wish to argue the ridiculous for whatever purpose you may have.

 

[rambone]

You're right, who needs laws when I can play judge jury and executioner for an american citizen?

You can't, in this situation the President, empowered by Congress can, we have a specific court case that considered his situation that says so. Just because you don't like that fact does not make it unconstitutional. The judge, empowered by the Constitution, decided it's up to the President based on the law and the fact the subject placing himself outside the jurisdictional reach of U.S. law. He was traveling with, assisting, recruiting for, and giving aid to what the Constitutionally empowered Congress determined to military enemy combatants against the United States. That not being good enough for you is not the Constitution's problem or our problem, it's your problem.

It is a problem for all of us, Carmel. The Executive should not have the unchecked power to assassinate anyone who is accused of being a threat. The Republic is turned on its head. Surely you can imagine how this [STRIKE]could[/STRIKE] will be misused.

 

[Plinker]

It is a problem for all of us, Carmel. The Executive should not have the unchecked power to assassinate anyone who is accused of being a threat. The Republic is turned on its head. Surely you can imagine how this [STRIKE]could[/STRIKE] will be misused.

Unfortunately most of us will see how it will be misused when it is too late to do anything about it.

 

[CarmelHP]

It is a problem for all of us, Carmel. The Executive should not have the unchecked power to assassinate anyone who is accused of being a threat. The Republic is turned on its head. Surely you can imagine how this [STRIKE]could[/STRIKE] will be misused.

The executive has always had this power and used it in fighting foreign based adversaries. Whether citizen or not is irrelevant. You don't send cops to fight a war or to arrest the enemy. The idea is ridiculous.

 

[rambone]

The executive has always had this power and used it in fighting foreign based adversaries. Whether citizen or not is irrelevant. You don't send cops to fight a war or to arrest the enemy. The idea is ridiculous.

So foreign soil is the hangup? Is that where you draw the line for the application of Due Process? Once Al-Awlaki were to set foot on U.S. soil, then you take execution off the table? What about use of the military on U.S. soil?

I would be astounded if we do not see "terror cells" operating in the U.S. in the next decade. Then the rubber is going to hit the road regarding due process and the use of the military on suspected emailers.

 

[CarmelHP]

So foreign soil is the hangup? Is that where you draw the line for the application of Due Process? Once Al-Awlaki were to set foot on U.S. soil, then you take execution off the table? What about use of the military on U.S. soil?

I would be astounded if we do not see "terror cells" operating in the U.S. in the next decade. Then the rubber is going to hit the road regarding due process and the use of the military on suspected emailers.

Right, just like the case you never read said, if he presented himself for arrest and trial under U.S. jurisdiction he is entitled to all protections, or if he is present in the United States he is subject to arrest and only reasonable force could be used. But, if he is accompanying agents of a foreign enemy on foreign soil then the President as authorized by Congress can take any military action against him that the President deems proper. A trial or hearing does not have to be held that would delay or endanger a successful military operation. We have already had terror cells operating in the United States, they've been arrested.

 

[GREEN607]

So foreign soil is the hangup? Is that where you draw the line for the application of Due Process? Once Al-Awlaki were to set foot on U.S. soil, then you take execution off the table? What about use of the military on U.S. soil?

I would be astounded if we do not see "terror cells" operating in the U.S. in the next decade. Then the rubber is going to hit the road regarding due process and the use of the military on suspected emailers.

CarmelHP answered this very well. But I will add, that you, sir, seriously need to 'educate' yourself on the facts of current domestic affairs..... before you start the 'talking out your keester'.

 

[GunSlinger]

As I see it the situation simply comes down to Al-Awlaki presented a clear and present danger to the US and it's citizens. In that case the president is authorized under a presidential finding to deal with Al-Awlaki as he sees fit.

That's it plain and simple. No further consideration needed.

Clear and present danger eliminated.

 

[rambone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnem1Ohm3Q0

 

[firehawk1]

The executive has always had this power and used it in fighting foreign based adversaries. Whether citizen or not is irrelevant. You don't send cops to fight a war or to arrest the enemy. The idea is ridiculous.

Problem is some first have to see him as an enemy, and some here don't/refuse to.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Right, just like the case you never read said, if he presented himself for arrest and trial under U.S. jurisdiction he is entitled to all protections, or if he is present in the United States he is subject to arrest and only reasonable force could be used. But, if he is accompanying agents of a foreign enemy on foreign soil then the President as authorized by Congress can take any military action against him that the President deems proper. A trial or hearing does not have to be held that would delay or endanger a successful military operation. We have already had terror cells operating in the United States, they've been arrested.

Exactly. The blind shiek, Yosef, Moussaoui were tried in US federal courts because they were subject to the American justice system. They were therefore entitled to Constitutional protections, the same afforded to American citizens in the same circumstance yet not afforded to the victims of their terror plots. Bin Laden, al Walaki, and thousands of other enemy combatants were not and did not.

Our resident anarchist's suggestion that the slippery slope will lead to assassinations on American soil is ludicrous.

Problem is some first have to see him as an enemy, and some here don't/refuse to.

Because they view these terrorists as assaulting the same government that they hate. They frame the discussion as strict adherance to the Constitution, but only in their perverse little minds does that mean we cannot protect ourselves from future acts of war executed by those who have declared it upon us. They blame America for the terror reigned down upon us.

 

[Garb]

Because they view these terrorists as assaulting the same government that they hate. They frame the discussion as strict adherance to the Constitution, but only in their perverse little minds does that mean we cannot protect ourselves from future acts of war executed by those who have declared it upon us. They blame America for the terror reigned down upon us.

So does sword rattling justify a war then? If so, I would think we should be blowing Iran and North Korea out of the water. So far, they've left us alone (and it's a wonder Iran has, we would be pissed if they did the same things to us). I say let them make threats. When they act on it, we go and get them. When we get them, we come home. The problem is that these wars hardly have anything to do with our security.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So does sword rattling justify a war then? If so, I would think we should be blowing Iran and North Korea out of the water. So far, they've left us alone (and it's a wonder Iran has, we would be pissed if they did the same things to us). I say let them make threats. When they act on it, we go and get them. When we get them, we come home. The problem is that these wars hardly have anything to do with our security.

I'll play - what war have we started solely because someone was sabre rattling?

Why do you want to go to war with Iran and North Korea? I thought you were a pacifist. I see no reason to go to war with either, as long as North Korea stays on its side of the 38th parallel. Israel will take care of Iran's nuclear aspirations.

 

[Garb]

I'll play - what war have we started solely because someone was sabre rattling?

Why do you want to go to war with Iran and North Korea? I thought you were a pacifist. I see no reason to go to war with either, as long as North Korea stays on its side of the 38th parallel. Israel will take care of Iran's nuclear aspirations.

Where did you get the idea that I am a pacifist? And which country has done more than sword rattle?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Where did you get the idea that I am a pacifist? And which country has done more than sword rattle?

You're consistently state a position of unwillingness to fight to protect America's interests. I call that a pacifist.

Afganistan and Iraq are two countries that have done more that sabre rattle. But back to my question - who has America ever attacked simply for sabre rattling?

 

[Garb]

You're consistently state a position of unwillingness to fight to protect America's interests. I call that a pacifist.

What are America's interests in your eyes?

Afganistan and Iraq are two countries that have done more that sabre rattle. But back to my question - who has America ever attacked simply for sabre rattling?

You mean the two countries we pitted against each other so we could control the oil? And besides, I was actually responding to this quote:

...we cannot protect ourselves from future acts of war executed by those who have declared it upon us.

I'm saying let them declare war. When they move, we fight. We don't take the fight to them just because they're talking ****.

 

[bigg cheese]

Because they view these terrorists as assaulting the same government that they hate. They frame the discussion as strict adherance to the Constitution, but only in their perverse little minds does that mean we cannot protect ourselves from future acts of war executed by those who have declared it upon us. They blame America for the terror reigned down upon us.

Not in the slightest. I'll not be misquoted. I said quite clearly that this is probably a very bad guy - that isn't my point. The actual killing means no nevermind to me. I'm not defending the man -- I'm defending the practice of due process which has just as much "right" as the second amendment. I'm betting the founders were mistaken when they assumed the populace wouldn't need "shall not be infringed" added to the end of it because they thought we would know better.