Ah yes, what a brilliant argument. "Fuck him, we are having our constitutional rights fucked over all the time so he can join the club"
That isn't really an effective strategy unless your goal is to get fucked over even more.
Ah yes, what a brilliant argument. "Fuck him, we are having our constitutional rights fucked over all the time so he can join the club"
That isn't really an effective strategy unless your goal is to get fucked over even more.
Who makes the determination that he's an enemy combatant? The President. Who kills him because he's an enemy combatant? The President. See any potential problems there? Why couldn't he declare you an enemy combatant tomorrow and blow you up?
Big difference between being shot in a police standoff and getting blown up by a drone while driving in the middle of bumfuck.
A better example would be the police just blowing up the house that a suspected murderer lived in without warning.
That is exactly my point. I have asked numerous times and unless I have missed it I have seen no reasonable response to "what law restricts the use of the Presidents authority to assassinate US citizens". I can only assume that there is no law granting the President the authority to take such an action because it blatantly violates the 5th amendment. If there is no law granting him the authority there is likely no law that restricts that authority either literally making him judge, jury and executioner. That is not the way it is supposed to work in the US.
Unfortunately all you have to do is throw terrorism in front of something these days and the sheeple go right along with it. You may agree with this President or you may agree with who he used this on but one day you very well may not. Once precedent is set it is very hard to reverse, especially concerning executive powers.
On the flip side we can get rid of most of our law enforcement here in the states and simply give the cops drones and hellfire missiles. It sure would be a lot safer to blow up anyone suspected of a crime than it is to send cops to arrest them. Maybe some javalin shoulder fired missiles for the few remaining street cops? Yeehaw!
Think about all the money we will save on court costs and prisons too! Serious win/win eh?
I am clearly stating that you are full of shit, and have no idea about the concept of law, and how it applies. Is that clear enough?
You can "claim" all sorts of shit, but that doesn't make it true, no matter what you "think". It's all well and good that you support illegal killings, but just because you agree, it doesn't make it legal. Get it? You can support torture of all suspected criminals, doesn't make it legal.
So again, post some legal evidence, like existing laws, or case examples that support your position.
Because in the real world, that is what matters, not what you "think". If you knew anything, or ever seen any real world trials, you would notice that the prosecuting attorney doesn't just say "Hey, I know he's guilty" or "I have evidence, so I think he is guilty, but I can't show it too you"and have the judge/jury say, "yup, guilty".
Doesn't work that way. Present proof or STFU. All you are doing is showing your ignorance of the laws of this country, and showing that you don't care about our laws.
All government agencies of the US are bound by US law, no matter where they are. Is that clear enough?
If it is illegal for the government to kill a US citizen, it is illegal if they do it in front of the white house, the north pole, or Yemen. Location doesn't matter.
The CIA, FBI, etc.,etc...all have to follow US law no matter where they are. Again, if this wasn't true, you would see the FBI taking every criminal in a boat 12 miles offshore, then killing them or something.
Look at Gitmo....the government tried to hold all accused terrorists there, claiming it wasn't US Territory, so US laws and protections didn't apply. The Supreme Court clearly ruled in the Hamdi case that this was not legal, and that Hamdi still had all rights and protections of being a US citizen. Look it up.
You really don't see the reason why the law is like this? How if it didn't work this way, the potenial for abuse would be huge?
Gee, was Hitler a US citizen? No. Was there an explicit Congressional declaration of war against Germany? Yup. Was Hitler the recognized leader of that country? Yup. So what is your point, except to troll and try to invoke some false moral outrage? Because this was no relevance to anything.
not even a good attempt at trolling. Just shows how clueless you are.
N o one is able to come forward and explain:
1. How Eric Rudolph, who was loose for YEARS hiding in the mountains, and committed terrorist acts (bombing the Olympic Park), wasn't hunted down and killed. They didn't send and hunter/killer teams, didn't drop bombs on hiding sites or anything. Why? They waited until he was found, and arrested him. Just like any other criminal. They didn't execute him on sight either, he got arrested.
They WAITED until they could arrest him. Happens all the time. Look at the 10-most wanted list. No one is dropping bombs on them, but everyone keeps their eyes open until they are seen/found.
Roman Polansky raped a little girl in the US, fled to France, and can't be extradited. He even apologized to the child. Since there is no hope of him flying to the US on his own, why aren't you arguing to kill him too?
After the first WTC bombing, guess what? The FBI found and captured the people responsible, brought them to trial, and convicted them, so they are still in prison. Took a while, but it worked, and no laws were broken. Shocking!
2. The law is clear that all US citizens get "due process". Doesn't matter if you like or hate someone, all citizens get EQUAL treatment under the law. You can shoot someone in front of 100 witnesses, but the police have to arrest you and you get a trial. They don't get to summarilty execute you if you are accused of a crime and happen to be sleeping in bed, or walking down the street minding your own business.
So show legal evidence, which no one has, that supports this execution. Simple " I hate the guy, I don't care" doesn't cut it. All that does is show you are clueless and don't care about the law.
1. How Eric Rudolph, who was loose for YEARS hiding in the mountains, and committed terrorist acts (bombing the Olympic Park), wasn't hunted down and killed. They didn't send and hunter/killer teams, didn't drop bombs on hiding sites or anything. Why? They waited until he was found, and arrested him. Just like any other criminal. They didn't execute him on sight either, he got arrested.
They WAITED until they could arrest him. Happens all the time. Look at the 10-most wanted list. No one is dropping bombs on them, but everyone keeps their eyes open until they are seen/found.
Roman Polansky raped a little girl in the US, fled to France, and can't be extradited. He even apologized to the child. Since there is no hope of him flying to the US on his own, why aren't you arguing to kill him too?
After the first WTC bombing, guess what? The FBI found and captured the people responsible, brought them to trial, and convicted them, so they are still in prison. Took a while, but it worked, and no laws were broken. Shocking!
2. The law is clear that all US citizens get "due process". Doesn't matter if you like or hate someone, all citizens get EQUAL treatment under the law. You can shoot someone in front of 100 witnesses, but the police have to arrest you and you get a trial. They don't get to summarilty execute you if you are accused of a crime and happen to be sleeping in bed, or walking down the street minding your own business.
So show legal evidence, which no one has, that supports this execution. Simple " I hate the guy, I don't care" doesn't cut it. All that does is show you are clueless and don't care about the law.
Why couldn't he declare that fish are frogs? Why couldn't Congress declare war on Mexico because of immigration? Why can't you go shoot your neighbor because you don't like him. I can see a potential problem in anything. What if a SWAT team breaks into my house by mistake just at the moment I'm cleaning my weapon? So sad for them that they'd all wind up dead, no? I'm an American citizen and my home is my castle and I have a right to self defense.
We shouldn't hire cops that can't read addresses or elect folk as President who can't match a national threat with a legal definition of enemy combatant or who wouldn't have a lot of legal scholars and experts helping him or her do it.
And we will want to weigh the risks here with the risks of allowing mad men in far places to live to plot to kill us by the millions. We don't, I think, willy nilly grant extraordinary power without extraordinary reasons.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Not an Obama hater just hate destroying constitutional protections like 5th amendment aka due process and turning into so many other nations where leaders rule by fiat and people just disappear by murdering his own citizens. This individual was not even indited for any crimes yet was targeted for assassination.
I think the left and Bush haters really need a reality check. Bush only detained and eavesdroped on American citizens without any due process and y'all cried for years about it, justifiably so. Here we are now a few years later and Obama still is detaining and eavesdroping on US citizens without due process, but also killing them and y'all defend it and even cheerleader it.
No one has the right to fly or use any other public service; one only has the privilege to use it if the fact that others have the right to use it for the purpose it was intended for is respected. Your ticket to board an airplane only entitles you to get you from point A to point B through the air. If Islamo-fascists then decide that their ticket entitles them to use an airliner as a human bomb, I am under no obligation to protect their right to do so or any other civil rights that they may have, even if it is by remote control through the use of a jihaditron, as Awlaki did. Hence, you can cry me a river about my lack of sympathy for due process, but it ain't gonna create the flood that will sweep me along with your silly viewpoint.
Last edited:
For all those who are floating the canard that the U.S. military/law-enforcement personnel would rather speak from the nose of a missile on a drone, here's a heart-warming story about how a fugitive from the law was captured in Portual after 40 years of painstaking detective work, is still very much alive and can still live the American dream by probably looking forward to a million dollar book deal about how he evaded them:
George Wright, fugitive US hijacker, caught in Portugal after 40 years
George Wright, fugitive US hijacker, caught in Portugal after 40 years
I'm not convinced the Constitution applies to Americans outside the US who are fighting against the US. If he an infantryman fighting for an enemy army we wouldn't have an qualms about shooting him. However, if they are captured in US like Jose Padilla I do believe they need to go through the civilian justice system.
Take everything you said and then take a good hard look in the mirror. Then slap yourself in the face for being a dumbfuck. lulz
Because that's a fantasy of the paranoid and ignorant. There is evidence that goes through the channels of military and government, with many levels of eyes on and approval from lawyers to commanders to experts to elected officials, including Congress. Once it has gone through these intricate processes and checks, the president may make the final decision.
It's a shame you have no clue what "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" really means and have a rather simpleton, narrow view that it somehow only equates to a trial.
Carry on with your tantrum.
Where did you get the idea that Congress has any input into specific cases like this one? Why would the fact that the information goes through agencies that the President controls change anything about what I wrote?
What legal boundaries prevent the President from declaring you to be an enemy combatant and unilaterally choosing to execute you? Please be specific.
Karl Agathon
Golden Member
- Sep 30, 2010
- 1,081
- 0
- 0
I'm not your biggest fan President Obama, but thanks! :thumbsup: I give credit where credit is due!
Last I checked, there were two other branches of government, with checks and balances. The POTUS is not a dictator. If Obama starts targetting political opponents, for example, you really think he's going to get away with that?
Because when this issue first arose over a year ago with putting him on a list, members of Congress, particularly those on the Senate select intel committee, were briefed and essentially approved the move. Google is your friend. It changes what you said by demonstrating that the president doesn't arbitrarily throw darts on a board to select targets, there is an in depth process that involves a lot of people and agencies. If you think that the whole thing can be rigged and the prez can select anyone he wants out of the blue and act on it, then:
a) we're all fucked anyway, and
b) why have any trust in any decision through any gov't institution?
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,669
- 8,210
- 136
You know, if you're making your point with the idea that you're comparing Bush against Obama, I think you need to aim higher and choose someone other than Dubyuh to make your argument more convincing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter