The Unconstitutional Assasination of the Al-Qaida leader Awlaki

All the liberal freedom fighters are coming out of their closets.
Why? Simply because the man was a US citizen.
Only because he was born on US soil.
His parents were not, and they were strong Islamic supporters, as he was.
He had a known history of violently preaching AGAINST the US government.
He went back to Yemen, joined the troops of Bin Laden, willingly.
He willingly chose to wage war against the US government.
He became an enemy of the US government willingly.
He waged war. He lost.
Persons who wage war from a foreign country do not have constitutional
rights.
The very moment you cross the borders of the USA, you lose your
constitutional rights. Period.

Bill Graham

2011-10-01 22:40:25 UTC

All the liberal freedom fighters are coming out of their closets.
Why? Simply because the man was a US citizen.
Only because he was born on US soil.
His parents were not, and they were strong Islamic supporters, as he
was. He had a known history of violently preaching AGAINST the US
government. He went back to Yemen, joined the troops of Bin Laden,
willingly.
He willingly chose to wage war against the US government.
He became an enemy of the US government willingly.
He waged war. He lost.
Persons who wage war from a foreign country do not have constitutional
rights.
The very moment you cross the borders of the USA, you lose your
constitutional rights. Period.

Hell.....We've lost a bunch of them staying on THIS side of the
border.......

Seth

2011-10-03 05:19:28 UTC

Post by richard
The very moment you cross the borders of the USA, you lose your
constitutional rights. Period.

Bull. Just because I was visiting some friends in Canada last weekend
doesn't imply any loss of my Constitutional rights.

Seth

Jim Austin

2011-10-01 18:09:08 UTC

The powers and responsibilities given to the U.S. government include
"...suppress Insurrections..." (Article I, Section 8, U.S.
Constitution) That means the President, entirely on his own authority
has the power to kill Americans citizens who takes up arms against the
United States.

Post by Marcus Aurelius
The better course would have been to charge him with a crime and issue
an international subpoena for his presence at the trial. He would
probably not appear. Go ahead with the trial, if he didn't appear.
Have legal representation for him at the trial. If found guilty as
charged, issue the sentence to be carried out. Carry out the sentence.

Thus the rights of Americans who take up arms against America is
comparable to the rights of Americans who joined the Army of the
Confederacy during the Civil War. President Lincoln was under no
obligation to charge individual Confederate soldiers with any crime or
issuing subpoenas before shooting them.

Attacks by factions against the United States are not law enforcement
problems. They are military problems, and the U.S. Commander in Chief
has the Constitutional powers to deal with them.

Post by Marcus Aurelius
The same is extremely dangerous for the
continuation of our nation as one in which all citizens have
Constitutional rights and liberties under the rule of law rather than
that under an Authoritarian dictator.

The Constitution provides no right to engage in terrorism. There is no
constitutional right to join international terrorist organizations.
Those who do will have to share the same risks as other terrorists who
make war against the U.S.

fifi

2011-10-01 20:07:41 UTC

What this guy is accused of doing, IF there is proof (Sadaam DEFINITELY
has weapons of mass destruction, yeah right) hardly qualifies as an
"insurrection". This is the Emperor Obama issuing an assasination order,
no more, no less.

Post by Marcus Aurelius
The better course would have been to charge him with a crime and
issue an international subpoena for his presence at the trial. He
would probably not appear. Go ahead with the trial, if he didn't
appear. Have legal representation for him at the trial. If found
guilty as charged, issue the sentence to be carried out. Carry out
the sentence.

Not a fair comparision, bogus. You're comparing a war with the actions
of an individual that were not even proven in a court of law.

Attacks by factions against the United States are not law enforcement
problems. They are military problems, and the U.S. Commander in Chief
has the Constitutional powers to deal with them.

Assasinations carried out without due process are unconstitutional and
illegal, same as murder.

What Obama did is reckless and violates American values and law.

richard

2011-10-01 20:30:38 UTC

Bullshit.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

This is verbatim. The wording does not imply that the President have
exclusive powers at will to employ military forces against any and all
persons he deems a threat. The wording states, that on American soil, the
militia may be called to repel invasions and suppress insurrections.
Nowhere in this document does it state the President has such powers.
He certainly does not have authority to single out a person, anywhere in
the world, and have them killed.

On American soil within the boundaries of the USA.

Attacks by factions against the United States are not law enforcement
problems. They are military problems, and the U.S. Commander in Chief
has the Constitutional powers to deal with them.

Cite? Did Bush have the legal authority to send troops into a foreign
country and capture their leader? No he did not. But Congress backed him on
his decision. Was it legal? No it was not.

The Constitution only deals with what may happen within the boundaries of
the USA. Not in foreign countries.
That document is only a framework. It does not define every possible thing
that could happen.

Jim Austin

2011-10-01 22:09:28 UTC

Bullshit.

I don't think we were discussing this guy's culinary proclivities.

Post by richard
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"The President shall be Commander in Chief ... of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
States;..." (Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution.)

When the Congress calls up the militia to "suppress Insurrections",
the President is Commander in Chief of such efforts, as he would be if
the efforts were performed entirely by the U.S. military.

Post by richard
This is verbatim. The wording does not imply that the President have
exclusive powers at will to employ military forces against any and all
persons he deems a threat.

It does imply the President may employ military forces against those
taking part in insurrections, as in, citizens at war against the U.S.

Post by richard
The wording states, that on American soil, the
militia may be called to repel invasions and suppress insurrections.
Nowhere in this document does it state the President has such powers.
He certainly does not have authority to single out a person, anywhere in
the world, and have them killed.

Singling out individuals to kill is very much part of war making
powers, whether that person is Isoroku Yamamoto, Osama bin Laden, Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, or Anwar al-Awlak. The only reason that Hitler
wasn't singled out was, given his disastrous military judgment, he was
regarded more valuable alive than dead.

On American soil within the boundaries of the USA.

Constitution provides no such limitation. During the Civil War, there
was at least one sea battle off the coast of France between Union and
Confederate ships. The U.S. may chase down insurrectionists anywhere
in the world they go.

Attacks by factions against the United States are not law enforcement
problems. They are military problems, and the U.S. Commander in Chief
has the Constitutional powers to deal with them.

Cite?

Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution, cited above.

Insurrections are military problems, whether it be the Whiskey
Rebellion, U.S. Civil War or Americans joining terrorist
organizations.

Post by richard
Did Bush have the legal authority to send troops into a foreign
country and capture their leader? No he did not. But Congress backed him on
his decision. Was it legal? No it was not.

Actually, it was. Out of more than 200 military actions by the U.S.,
only about five involved Congressional declarations of war.

The Constitution only deals with what may happen within the boundaries of
the USA. Not in foreign countries.

Cite where it is so limited.

Post by richard
That document is only a framework. It does not define every possible thing
that could happen.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." according to Supreme Court
Justice H. Robert Jackson.

bobo fizmarkian

2011-10-02 02:58:16 UTC

Bullshit.

I don't think we were discussing this guy's culinary proclivities.

Post by richard
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"The President shall be Commander in Chief ... of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
States;..." (Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution.)
When the Congress calls up the militia to "suppress Insurrections", the
President is Commander in Chief of such efforts, as he would be if the
efforts were performed entirely by the U.S. military.

Post by richard
This is verbatim. The wording does not imply that the President have
exclusive powers at will to employ military forces against any and all
persons he deems a threat.

It does imply the President may employ military forces against those
taking part in insurrections, as in, citizens at war against the U.S.

Post by richard
The wording states, that on American soil, the militia may be called to
repel invasions and suppress insurrections. Nowhere in this document
does it state the President has such powers. He certainly does not have
authority to single out a person, anywhere in the world, and have them
killed.

Singling out individuals to kill is very much part of war making powers,
whether that person is Isoroku Yamamoto, Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, or Anwar al-Awlak. The only reason that Hitler wasn't
singled out was, given his disastrous military judgment, he was regarded
more valuable alive than dead.

The better course would have been to charge him with a crime and
issue an international subpoena for his presence at the trial. He
would probably not appear. Go ahead with the trial, if he didn't
appear. Have legal representation for him at the trial. If found
guilty as charged, issue the sentence to be carried out. Carry out
the sentence.

On American soil within the boundaries of the USA.

To do otherwise, delegitimizes his killing and implies that the USA
does not follow the rule of law with the executive assuming
dictatorial powers combining the legislative, judicial, and
executive functions into ONE PERSON.

Attacks by factions against the United States are not law enforcement
problems. They are military problems, and the U.S. Commander in Chief
has the Constitutional powers to deal with them.

Cite?

Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution, cited above.
Insurrections are military problems, whether it be the Whiskey
Rebellion, U.S. Civil War or Americans joining terrorist organizations.

Post by richard
Did Bush have the legal authority to send troops into a foreign country
and capture their leader? No he did not. But Congress backed him on his
decision. Was it legal? No it was not.

Actually, it was. Out of more than 200 military actions by the U.S.,
only about five involved Congressional declarations of war.

The same is extremely dangerous for the continuation of our nation
as one in which all citizens have Constitutional rights and
liberties under the rule of law rather than that under an
Authoritarian dictator.

The Constitution provides no right to engage in terrorism. There is
no constitutional right to join international terrorist
organizations. Those who do will have to share the same risks as
other terrorists who make war against the U.S.

The Constitution only deals with what may happen within the boundaries
of the USA. Not in foreign countries.

Cite where it is so limited.

Post by richard
That document is only a framework. It does not define every possible
thing that could happen.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." according to Supreme Court
Justice H. Robert Jackson.

Neither the predator drone, nor the Hellfire MD72v (missile of delivery
to 72 virgins model) had "militia" marked on their side.

--
Bobo

Jim Austin

2011-10-02 20:56:12 UTC

Post by bobo fizmarkian

Bullshit.

I don't think we were discussing this guy's culinary proclivities.

Post by richard
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"The President shall be Commander in Chief ... of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
States;..." (Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution.)
When the Congress calls up the militia to "suppress Insurrections", the
President is Commander in Chief of such efforts, as he would be if the
efforts were performed entirely by the U.S. military.

Post by richard
This is verbatim. The wording does not imply that the President have
exclusive powers at will to employ military forces against any and all
persons he deems a threat.

It does imply the President may employ military forces against those
taking part in insurrections, as in, citizens at war against the U.S.

Post by richard
The wording states, that on American soil, the militia may be called to
repel invasions and suppress insurrections. Nowhere in this document
does it state the President has such powers. He certainly does not have
authority to single out a person, anywhere in the world, and have them
killed.

Singling out individuals to kill is very much part of war making powers,
whether that person is Isoroku Yamamoto, Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, or Anwar al-Awlak. The only reason that Hitler wasn't
singled out was, given his disastrous military judgment, he was regarded
more valuable alive than dead.

On American soil within the boundaries of the USA.

Attacks by factions against the United States are not law enforcement
problems. They are military problems, and the U.S. Commander in Chief
has the Constitutional powers to deal with them.

Cite?

Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution, cited above.
Insurrections are military problems, whether it be the Whiskey
Rebellion, U.S. Civil War or Americans joining terrorist organizations.

Post by richard
Did Bush have the legal authority to send troops into a foreign country
and capture their leader? No he did not. But Congress backed him on his
decision. Was it legal? No it was not.

Actually, it was. Out of more than 200 military actions by the U.S.,
only about five involved Congressional declarations of war.

The Constitution provides no right to engage in terrorism. There is
no constitutional right to join international terrorist
organizations. Those who do will have to share the same risks as
other terrorists who make war against the U.S.

The Constitution only deals with what may happen within the boundaries
of the USA. Not in foreign countries.

Cite where it is so limited.

Post by richard
That document is only a framework. It does not define every possible
thing that could happen.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." according to Supreme Court
Justice H. Robert Jackson.

Neither the predator drone, nor the Hellfire MD72v (missile of delivery
to 72 virgins model) had "militia" marked on their side.

Not required.

Gordon Burditt

2011-10-01 21:13:27 UTC

Even for much less serious crimes within the United States, an
indictment by a grand jury is not necessarily *PUBLIC*. Why warn
the guy we're after him? It might be unsealed after we catch him,
or it might stay sealed for reasons of the ever-convenient excuse
"national security (which often means Not Embarassing The Guys In
Office)". We don't know that they *DIDN'T* do that, although I
really don't like secret trials with the defendant not present to
defend himself.

Of course, if the grand jury hands down an indictment for wife-murder
or being a scofflaw with 10,000 unpaid traffic citations for someone
more local, like in the same city, the next step is a trial, not
an execution.

Post by Marcus Aurelius
Have legal representation for him at the trial. If found guilty as
charged, issue the sentence to be carried out. Carry out the sentence.

How do you know they *DIDN'T* do this? In secret, of course. Gotta
protect the sources that ratted him out. Actually, I rate the
chances that they really did hold a (secret) trial at about the
chances of a snowball in the Sahara Desert, but I don't think you
can be sure that they didn't have a trial. It might even have had
some semblance of fairness. How many secret courts are there in
the United States? FISA is one of the ones whose existence is known
but the details of what it does isn't. And does FISA (*S* for
Surveillance) have the right to surveil his brain? By removing it?
With missiles?

Post by Marcus Aurelius
To do otherwise, delegitimizes his killing and implies that the USA
does not follow the rule of law with the executive assuming
dictatorial powers combining the legislative, judicial, and executive
functions into ONE PERSON. The same is extremely dangerous for the
continuation of our nation as one in which all citizens have
Constitutional rights and liberties under the rule of law rather than
that under an Authoritarian dictator.

It's hard to prove that all three branches (the Grays, the Klingons,
and a sentient form of the Ebola virus - which of those is Obama
part of?) weren't involved.

Oh, yes, I should say I think this guy deserved it, although I would
have preferred that he accidentally get thrown into the Sun as an
offering to Allah.

Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names

2011-10-01 22:25:49 UTC

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Marcus Aurelius

Post by Marcus Aurelius
A U.S. drone recently assassinated the Al-Qaida leader Awalaki.
I, personally, vehemently oppose the religious extremism and violence
that that organization represents and support efforts to counter the
same.
However, those efforts should follow both rule of law under the U.S.
Constitution and international rules of Warfare established under the
Geneva Convention.
The better course would have been to charge him with a crime and issue
an international subpoena for his presence at the trial. He would
probably not appear. Go ahead with the trial, if he didn't appear.
Have legal representation for him at the trial. If found guilty as
charged, issue the sentence to be carried out. Carry out the sentence.
To do otherwise, delegitimizes his killing and implies that the USA
does not follow the rule of law with the executive assuming
dictatorial powers combining the legislative, judicial, and executive
functions into ONE PERSON. The same is extremely dangerous for the
continuation of our nation as one in which all citizens have
Constitutional rights and liberties under the rule of law rather than
that under an Authoritarian dictator.

The DOJ issued a legal opinion that this action was legal.

Just as the DOJ issued a legal opinion that waterboarding is legal.

So -- you now have your nuts in a vise.

If you claim that the DOJ legal opinion in this case is illegal, how
do you support the DOJ opinion in favor of waterboarding?

And if you claim the DOJ waterboarding opinion is correct, then, so is
this one.

Damn, but you rightwankers are a stupid lot.

Buster Norris (Cracks Pansy Lib's Heads and Laughs At Them)

2011-10-02 03:00:49 UTC

Summary: Not only the most prolific liar also the most prolific thief
of other's writings. She is also a Stolen Valor stain on America.

[][][][][][]

The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 06:28:48 -0400, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names

The most serious Medicare/Medicaid fraud is committed by REPUBLICANS.
In the same week that Frist was sworn in as Senate Majority Leader,
HCA -- his family's business -- paid a $600 million fine for Medicare
fraud.

Bill Frist, United States Senator from Tennessee
In office January 3, 1995 January 3, 2007.

United States Senate Majority Leader
In office January 3, 2003 January 3, 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist

HCA to settle more allegations for $631M
12/18/2002
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2002-12-18-hca-settlement-_x.htm

bobo fizmarkian

2011-10-02 03:01:47 UTC

Post by Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Marcus Aurelius

A U.S. drone recently assassinated the Al-Qaida leader Awalaki. I,
personally, vehemently oppose the religious extremism and violence that
that organization represents and support efforts to counter the same.
However, those efforts should follow both rule of law under the U.S.
Constitution and international rules of Warfare established under the
Geneva Convention.
The better course would have been to charge him with a crime and issue
an international subpoena for his presence at the trial. He would
probably not appear. Go ahead with the trial, if he didn't appear. Have
legal representation for him at the trial. If found guilty as charged,
issue the sentence to be carried out. Carry out the sentence. To do
otherwise, delegitimizes his killing and implies that the USA does not
follow the rule of law with the executive assuming dictatorial powers
combining the legislative, judicial, and executive functions into ONE
PERSON. The same is extremely dangerous for the continuation of our
nation as one in which all citizens have Constitutional rights and
liberties under the rule of law rather than that under an Authoritarian
dictator.

The DOJ issued a legal opinion that this action was legal.
Just as the DOJ issued a legal opinion that waterboarding is legal.
So -- you now have your nuts in a vise.
If you claim that the DOJ legal opinion in this case is illegal, how do
you support the DOJ opinion in favor of waterboarding?
And if you claim the DOJ waterboarding opinion is correct, then, so is
this one.
Damn, but you rightwankers are a stupid lot.

Either the DOJ lawyer who ruled this should be arrested, or that law prof
at UC Berzerkeley who ruled for Bush should be released from the UC
Berzerkely jail.

This would free ALL nuts from vices.

--
Bobo

Bill Graham

2011-10-01 22:38:14 UTC

Yes. And, on the morning of September 11, 2001, the terrorists should have
issued supoenas to the three thousand odd people they were going to kill
that morning, and held a trial for all of them in Saudi Arabia. Then, when
none of them appeared, they could have issued death sentences for all of
them, and, on some subsequent date, killed them all. - I wonder why they
didn't do that?

richard

2011-10-02 18:18:09 UTC

Well then how about this scenario that's played out every week somewhere in
the USA?
A horde of cops have a bad guy surrounded. The bad guy has a gun. The guy
simply raises his hand and aims the gun at the cops.
Cops open fire and the guy is dead.
Isn't that denial of due process?
What would be wrong with capturing the idiot by employing a pair of
firetrucks and hosing the guy?
Or just surrounding him under solid protection and just waiting him out?

Bill Graham

2011-10-02 18:30:00 UTC

Well then how about this scenario that's played out every week
somewhere in the USA?
A horde of cops have a bad guy surrounded. The bad guy has a gun. The
guy simply raises his hand and aims the gun at the cops.
Cops open fire and the guy is dead.
Isn't that denial of due process?
What would be wrong with capturing the idiot by employing a pair of
firetrucks and hosing the guy?
Or just surrounding him under solid protection and just waiting him out?

Its sometimes worse than that. Here in Portland Oregon about a year or so
ago, they shot and killed a guy who was completely naked. He was on fire,
and tore his burning clothes off, and the cops shot him to death. They said,
"We thought he was brandishing a gun". Ofr course, the police commission
that investigates these things let them off. - they always do.

richard

2011-10-03 02:45:53 UTC

Post by Bill Graham

Well then how about this scenario that's played out every week
somewhere in the USA?
A horde of cops have a bad guy surrounded. The bad guy has a gun. The
guy simply raises his hand and aims the gun at the cops.
Cops open fire and the guy is dead.
Isn't that denial of due process?
What would be wrong with capturing the idiot by employing a pair of
firetrucks and hosing the guy?
Or just surrounding him under solid protection and just waiting him out?

Yep and ya think that shit only happens in hollywood.

Evan Platt

2011-10-03 04:39:56 UTC

Post by richard
Well then how about this scenario that's played out every week somewhere in
the USA?
A horde of cops have a bad guy surrounded. The bad guy has a gun. The guy
simply raises his hand and aims the gun at the cops.

"Simply"?

Post by richard
Cops open fire and the guy is dead.

Please provide 10 links to show this happens every week.

Post by richard
Isn't that denial of due process?

No, it's called stupidity.

Post by richard
What would be wrong with capturing the idiot by employing a pair of
firetrucks and hosing the guy?

You're right. When the guy raises his gun and aims, call the fire
department.

Few problems here, bullis. First, that will take some time.

Second, they won't send in the fire department in a situation like
that. When there's an armed suspect, the fire department will stage
somewhere safe until the person is in custody.

Post by richard
Or just surrounding him under solid protection and just waiting him out?

Even better idea, Chief.

Now, since you are the police Chief, and you made that decision, let's
play out your little scenario. Man aims gun, and opens fire. Empties
about 50 rounds. Thank goodness the officers took cover. But, a few
stray bullets killed 3 neighborhood kids.

News reporter to police chief: "Please explain why your cops did
nothing while this guy unloaded a gun, killing 3 children."

--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

InvitingVulva

2011-10-11 18:09:31 UTC