The Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

As I keep showing, Ron Paul cynically ABUSES the constitution. He shits all over the constitution and the founding fathers.

[/quote]

OK, show me where the Constitution requires the Fed.

Also, are you implying the “The Founding Fathers” never disagreed (that is to say 'its wrong to disagree with ‘a founding father’)? Thomas Jefferson (you know, a FOUNDING FATHER) also opposed many of Hamilton’s views of the role of government. As did a whole host of other “Founding Fathers”.

RP’s views on the Fed are not unconstitutional.

[quote]
Actually EVERY Ron Paul supporter I have ever debated has shown themselves to be completely ignorant of the constitution and US history.[/quote]

I think you take yourself way too seriously.[/quote]

No I’m not implying that. And yes you are correct - Jefferson’s(and Madison) and Hamilton’s(and John Adams) disagreements led to the first party system. And I didn’t actually claim Ron Paul’s views on the Fed are ‘unconstitutional.’ His ‘kill the Fed’ nonsense is just a modern rendition of Andrew Jackson’s idiotic ‘kill the (2nd National) bank’ nonsense.[/quote]

If you’re not implying that, then I’m not sure how you can substantiate your claim that RP is “abusing the constitution”. I haven’t read any of your other posts, but you claim that you ‘keep showing’ that he does so-- that sounds dubious to me at best since working within Constitutional means to try to repeal laws is quite… Constitutional. Happens all the time.

How is working to repeal something ‘abusing the Constitution’? How is holding government and its actions accountable to it powers granted by the Constitution abusing the Constitution.

More on topic, the man feels the government’s actions against this terrorist were an abuse of power and perhaps against the law. How is that ‘abusing the Constitution’?

I like RP, but I don’t agree with everything he says. As I wrote earlier, I think the world is better off without the terrorist. However, I would like to be assured that the government acted within its rights. It’s not clear from any source that this was cut and dry and the basis in law has not been made public. Why should the basis in law be confidential? No one is asking for intelligence secrets, just basis in law. That’s all RP is asking for.[/quote]

One thing that must always be kept in mind when listening to Ron Paul is that he is a lunatic. He comes out with ideas that at first might sound reasonable but if you think them through it soon becomes clear that he is out of his mind and living in a fantasy world.

If faithfully followed through on, much of Paul’s rhetoric will result in us painting ourselves into a corner where we are either unable to act or we solve one problem problem but we create another.

82

[quote]Sifu wrote:

One thing that must always be kept in mind when listening to Ron Paul is that he is a lunatic. He comes out with ideas that at first might sound reasonable but if you think them through it soon becomes clear that he is out of his mind and living in a fantasy world.

If faithfully followed through on, much of Paul’s rhetoric will result in us painting ourselves into a corner where we are either unable to act or we solve one problem problem but we create another.

[/quote]

Alright.

Am I the only one who thinks that was hilarious?

So Sifu, if all that came to pass, how would you tell the difference?

83

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Not the United State of America, America, the idea, the ideal.

The shining city on the hill.

Shame on you.
[/quote]

WTF are you talking about orion? America IS the union. If you’re against the union you’re against America. I thought this was all sorted out in the 1860’s.[/quote]

Could you find a facepalm.jpg for me?

To think that your ancestors were convicted criminals, and then, you got all servile and submitting to “authoritay”…

What happened, mate?[/quote]

Actually I’m not big on ‘submitting’ - I know it’s the Austrian way(Anschluss) but anyone who tries to invade my country or make me pay the Jizya is going to bleed I can assure you.[/quote]

Sure.

So every freedom you loose is still better than having to submit to Islam…

Alrighty then, if you send my 50 $ a month I will totally protect you from Wolperdingers.

If you should ever come to Wolperdinger related harm, you get you money back!

84

It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.

85

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

You think !?!

No worries, we only need to reinterpret…

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”…

…to mean the complete opposite of what it says and we are golden.

86

You see, conservatives get upset if liberals wipe their asses with the constitution.

Because, lets face it, that means less paper to wipe their asses with.

A question that has still has not been answered…

Assuming that the constitution is a contract between the government and the people what legal authority has anyone that does not give a shit about keeping his side of the bargain?

And that is if we assume that a 200 year old legal document that is widely ignored has any meaning whatsoever.

88

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

If you’re not implying that, then I’m not sure how you can substantiate your claim that RP is “abusing the constitution”.

[/quote]

RP is abusing the constitution in many ways. I have many examples.

This relates to a point I’ve made before. It depends how you go about repealing something. The making of law is the jurisdiction of the legislature; the interpreting of law the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Once a constitutional matter has been ruled upon in the highest court, the only way to change it is with a constitutional amendment. The correct process for making an amendment is set out in Article Five of the constitution. Of course subsequent judicial decisions can set new precedents via different constitutional interpretations.

See above.

Is that a trick question?

Absolutely NOT an abuse of power. This guy was involved in dozens of plots and attacks against US civilians. He incited people to ‘kill Americans wherever you find them’ and urged the overthrow of the US government. It wasn’t against the law either. For one thing he is an “enemy comabatant” - i.e. “an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.” The unanimous USSC ruling Ex parte Quirin accepted the classification of two US citizens as “enemy combatants”.

Didn’t say it was. An example of ‘abusing the constitution’ would be using an incorrect interpretation of the constitution or circumventing the constitution for a political purpose. Many examples I have given.

[quote]
I like RP, but I don’t agree with everything he says. As I wrote earlier, I think the world is better off without the terrorist. However, I would like to be assured that the government acted within its rights. It’s not clear from any source that this was cut and dry and the basis in law has not been made public. Why should the basis in law be confidential? No one is asking for intelligence secrets, just basis in law. That’s all RP is asking for.[/quote]

http://hir.harvard.edu/soviet-legacies/exercising-wartime-powers?page=0,0

89

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

You think !?!

No worries, we only need to reinterpret…

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”…

…to mean the complete opposite of what it says and we are golden. [/quote]

The Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to enemy combatants. In addition, although the constitution has global jurisdiction, the framers of the Bill of Rights were clearly providing for the people within the country. They were not granting these rights to people outside of the country. For one thing the modern concept of ‘citizenship’ didn’t exist.

90

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

One thing that must always be kept in mind when listening to Ron Paul is that he is a lunatic. He comes out with ideas that at first might sound reasonable but if you think them through it soon becomes clear that he is out of his mind and living in a fantasy world.

If faithfully followed through on, much of Paul’s rhetoric will result in us painting ourselves into a corner where we are either unable to act or we solve one problem problem but we create another.

[/quote]

Alright.

Am I the only one who thinks that was hilarious?

So Sifu, if all that came to pass, how would you tell the difference?[/quote]

I’ll give you an example. There was a presidential candidate named Barry Obama who felt that it was terrible how the Bush administration was going to hold enemy combatants in Guantanamo indefinitely and not give them trials.

When Barry O. became president because of his election rhetoric he could no longer follow the Bush policy of capturing terrorists and holding them indefinitely. So now because of all his rhetoric about trials, instead of capturing and interrogating them like Bush did, all he can do now is kill them. Which is why under Obama there has been a drastic increase in terrorists getting killed with predator drones.

91

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

When the police have to go after an armed and dangerous criminal who has killed police or threatened to kill police and not be taken alive they are given a lot more discretion to use deadly force. Usually those criminals haven’t been tried and convicted either but if they have to kill them to stop them from hurting someone else they will.

This is not as complicated as you are trying to make it.

92

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

^^Read the constitution. Presidential emergency powers.

93

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

One thing that must always be kept in mind when listening to Ron Paul is that he is a lunatic. He comes out with ideas that at first might sound reasonable but if you think them through it soon becomes clear that he is out of his mind and living in a fantasy world.

If faithfully followed through on, much of Paul’s rhetoric will result in us painting ourselves into a corner where we are either unable to act or we solve one problem problem but we create another.

[/quote]

Alright.

Am I the only one who thinks that was hilarious?

So Sifu, if all that came to pass, how would you tell the difference?[/quote]

I’ll give you an example. There was a presidential candidate named Barry Obama who felt that it was terrible how the Bush administration was going to hold enemy combatants in Guantanamo indefinitely and not give them trials.

When Barry O. became president because of his election rhetoric he could no longer follow the Bush policy of capturing terrorists and holding them indefinitely. So now because of all his rhetoric about trials, instead of capturing and interrogating them like Bush did, all he can do now is kill them. Which is why under Obama there has been a drastic increase in terrorists getting killed with predator drones.

[/quote]

I’m going to go ahead and say I’d rather see people who idolize a pedophile to the point that they attack civilians dead than in jail.

94

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

You think !?!

No worries, we only need to reinterpret…

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”…

…to mean the complete opposite of what it says and we are golden. [/quote]

Which part of “except in cases arising…in time of War or public danger” do you not understand?

Does ex parte Quirin apply? If so, was there a military tribunal?
Was Anwar armed against the US? Did he make himself a legitimate military target by directing military actions? if so, Quirin need not be applied, there is no habeas, no indictment, and there is no hand-wringing about misinterpreted Constitutional rights.

95

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Which part of “except in cases arising…in time of War or public danger” do you not understand?

[/quote]

All of them, I’m sure.

96

[quote]pushharder wrote:
NavJoe, by your line of reasoning any foreign enemy force that was at war with the United States would merely have to recruit an American citizen into its ranks in order to prevent a US military operation against the unit that contained the US citizen(s).[/quote]

Excellent.

97

[quote]pushharder wrote:
NavJoe, by your line of reasoning any foreign enemy force that was at war with the United States would merely have to recruit an American citizen into its ranks in order to prevent a US military operation against the unit that contained the US citizen(s).[/quote]

Not really, because I am assuming that you would declare war, like, send this nation, and that is what it oughta be for a proper “war”, a nice note that you plan on kicking its ass big time and then you shoot anyone who wears their uniform and anyone who does not and still shoots at your troops.

To declare war on a strategy like “terror” and snuff anyone loosely affiliated with anyone you deem to be an enemy in this “war” is beyond ridiculous.

98

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

You think !?!

No worries, we only need to reinterpret…

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”…

…to mean the complete opposite of what it says and we are golden. [/quote]

The Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to enemy combatants. In addition, although the constitution has global jurisdiction, the framers of the Bill of Rights were clearly providing for the people within the country. They were not granting these rights to people outside of the country. For one thing the modern concept of ‘citizenship’ didn’t exist.[/quote]

Just so you know, the Bill of Rights does not apply to anyone but one entity alone, the federal governments of the United States.

Maybe, just maybe, I am willing to admit that it might extend in some cases to the states, not because it was meant to be that way, but because it is interpreted that way by the SCOTUS.

This whole argument about how the constitution does not apply to non Americans or whomever is blatant nonsense.

Anyhow,. you dont get to murder people as a president just because you play nice, little word games like “enemy combatant”.

99

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

^^Read the constitution. Presidential emergency powers.[/quote]

Could you point out where you find that in the US constitution?

Because the Austrian president actually has emergency powers and they are not “implied” or need to be interpreted into the constitution, I can easily show you where they are.

Should be easy to do the same with the US constitution.

100

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

You think !?!

No worries, we only need to reinterpret…

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”…

…to mean the complete opposite of what it says and we are golden. [/quote]

Which part of “except in cases arising…in time of War or public danger” do you not understand?

Does ex parte Quirin apply? If so, was there a military tribunal?
Was Anwar armed against the US? Did he make himself a legitimate military target by directing military actions? if so, Quirin need not be applied, there is no habeas, no indictment, and there is no hand-wringing about misinterpreted Constitutional rights.

[/quote]

Which part of, there is no war unless declared by congress and this guys posed no immediate danger whatsoever and it is doubtful that he was anything more than a loudmouth do you not understand?

edit: Because, it could very well be that this guy was killed for what he said, problem is he is actually allowed to say whatever he wants.