If you support the President having the power to kill American citizens without due process

[Bake]

Then you probably agreed with Nixon, that "it's not illegal if the President does it."

Bake

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Congress gave him the power to do it, so it is not illegal

[Bake]

4. Congress doesn't have the power to abrogate the Constitution.

There's that pesky little "due process" amendment ...

Just because Congress does it doesn't make it constitutional. History is littered with congressional acts that have been struck down.

Bake

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Has this one been struck down?

Why did the ACLU not file an appeal when a judge dismissed their lawsuit seeking and injunction against killing al-Awlaki?

[Bake]

13. The Patriot Act hasn't been struck down either

But anybody with a third grade understanding of the Constitution knows it's unconstitutional as hell!

Bake

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Why hasn't the PATRIOT act been struck down?

[Bake]

26. Gee, I guess it must be OK, then. Right?

But you were ALL screaming against it at the time.

Jesus, this place is fucking STUPID!

Bake

[shanti]

43. unbelievable, isn't it?

it's just not the same here anymore, sadly....:(

[JoePhilly]

56. Your OP asks if it was LEGAL. ... that was YOUR framing.

You are trying to claim that Obama did something that is illegal.

And you seem to claim that Obama is like Nixon, and that his position, and anyone who supports him, thinks that "its not illegal when the President does it."

Yet I don't see and then when people respond about the existing law, you seem to DUMP your "is it legal" argument, and switch to a new framing.

Seems disingenuous.

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. Apparently IOKIODI.

It's okay if Obama does it. He can do no wrong. :silly:

Never was, with bu$hco,inc. :shrug:

[Bake]

67. IOKIODI!! +100000

I like it!

:hi:

Bake

[doc03]

2. Not defending Bush but if Bush would have done the same thing

we would be calling for his impeachment and his head.

[Kahuna]

22. I wouldn't. I assume that you believe the majority of DUers would have....

Though I really don't know how you would presume to know how the majority of DUers feel. There's too much assuming going on around here.

[MadHound]

28. Go search the archives,

There was much discussion about this back in the day, and yes, the overwhelming majority of DUer's thought that such a power shouldn't be in the President's hands and that it was indeed unconstitutional. Amazing what the switching of the letter R to a D behind a president's name will cause. In this case, it caused a lot of people to jump on the bloodthirsty bandwagon.

[FSogol]

3. If you are against our govt killing our enemies during a war, you are probably one step away from

calling for Obama's impeachment. Come off your lofty high perch and continually stop bashing the administration.

[Bake]

7. If our enemy is an American citizen, there are procedures in place for that.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not losing sleep over al-Alwaki. He got what he deserved. What bothers me is the Constitution being disregarded.

And if Obama did something illegal, yes he DESERVES impeachment.

And do you want me to "continually stop bashing" or stop continually bashing? Words matter. The Constitution is WORDS, after all. I'll stop bashing when Obama starts acting like a DEMOCRAT.

Oh, I get it. Just "shut up and sing."

Right.

Bake

[Kahuna]

23. The procedures are to deal with him in the USA. He wasn't in the USA

so those procedures don't apply.

[Bake]

32. Really? Show me in the Constitution where it says anything about WHERE the citizen is located.

I'm waiting.

Bake

[Kahuna]

39. It doesn't have to say it since OBVIOUSLY, you cannot extend rights

to someone who is a fugitive on foreign soil where there is no legal process to be extradited.

[Bake]

44. Really? Because I don't see that limitation in the Constitution.

I'm sure you can quote me article and section.

Or in the alternative, I'd love to see you make that argument before the Supreme Court ... oh wait, you're not a lawyer, are you.

Bake

[bvar22]

62. A fugitive from whom?

Before someone can be a "fugitive",
there has to be a warrant from the COURT naming him a fugitive.
The US does NOT even have an Extradition Treaty with Yemen,
yet YOU would endorse their court system.

Would you also do the same thing for countries that have Sharia Law?


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CarmanK]

5. He renounced his citizenship when he JOINED THE ENEMY!

AND declared the US of America and its people the enemy of AlQaeda and joined their ranks. He was on foreign soil, in an enemy encampment. He deserves what he got. He chose to die, the way he lived a traitor and murderer.

[Bake]

9. Don't we TRY traitors in this country?

I seem to recall a few U.S. citizens being tried and imprisoned -- even executed -- for treason.

Again, it's not al-whatshisname. It's the PRINCIPLE of Due Process. We deem it so important we CAPITALIZE it. Until it's inconvenient.

Bake

[Kahuna]

20. Fine. If he had returned to the USA, that would have happened..but

he chose to remain in a foreign land where he could gleefully plot against America. He got what he had coming, IMHO.

[Bake]

27. Did we even try to apprehend him?

Nah ... a drone strike was so much quicker and easier.

Your taxes go to pay for this, by the way. Not the rich people, becuase we all know they don't pay taxes.

Bake

[Uncle Joe]

29. That's the billion dollar question.

Was there ever an international arrest warrant filed against him, did the U.S. Government ever ask him to come back voluntarily?:shrug:

The result of this was to turn him into a martyr, erode the Fifth Amendment and kill any moral grounds we had in telling other authoritarian nations' ie: Iran, Syria that they shouldn't arbitrarily target and kill their citizens abroad.

The War on Terror (emotion) will no more end than the "War on some Drugs" and at some point in the future we will have some evil SOBs (possibly putting Cheney/Bush to shame) come to power in the White House and what's to prevent them from targeting political opponents, citing state secrecy with no need to produce evidence of any kind?

This is a most perilous path for our democratic republic and I don't see any good end to it.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uncle Joe]

34. It's kind of a catch 22, they're afraid

of bucking the current administration too much lest it lead to a Puke in the White House, but I believe if we don't strongly criticize or verbally correct actions that we perceive to be wrong, we become that which we hate the most.

[Kahuna]

42. He knew he was wanted. He should have surrendered. Why should

Americans risk their lives to apprehend this guy? Maybe the next time an American terrorist is wanted in Yemen, YOU can volunteer to go in to apprehend them since you seem to think it's as easy as that.

[Bake]

45. Not my job.

I just point out what the CONSTITUTION says. Not that you give a damn about that.

You'd make a great demagogue. Just like Limbaugh.

Edited to add: Actually, it's the Administration's job to do that. They're the ones that wanted him dead.

Bake

[hack89]

47. How many lives would you have risked to arrest him?

here we have a man living in a basically lawless region surrounded by armed and violent men. Short of a military mission, just how were we to arrest him? Are you ok with the President using the military to kidnap American felons in foreign countries? What if that country denied our request to use force to grab him - is now ok to kill him or is our only option to let him continue with his activities, even if it results in the death of innocent Americans?

[Bake]

51. Only the ones that get paid to do that job.

And to plan the operation to minimize the risk.

By your argument, we should just kill all suspected criminals, because cops might be put in danger. And that's just silly.

Bake

[hack89]

52. But you are talking about military actions

on the ground in hostile territory where the advantage belongs to the terrorists. You really can't see the difference between taking on a terrorist organization that has military grade weapons and a single criminal? Really?

So answer this question - if his bodyguards opened fire would it be ok to kill him then? What do you think the odds would be that they would not open fire? I say they would be zero - so that being the case what's the point? You don't really have to get American soldiers killed needlessly to defend the Constitution you know.

[Bake]

53. Well, since it's a foregone conclusion, let's just stop trying to arrest anybody.

We'll just kill them instead.

What's the saying? "Nice post, Hitler."

Bake

[hack89]

59. No - lets arrest or extradite terrorists when we can

and kill them when we can't. That's the entire point here - it was not possible to arrest him without getting a bunch of people killed.

[Bake]

61. I"m not sure we know that ... what I do know is it was a drone strike.

With some guy playing Call of Duty and riding a joystick back at the base.

AGain, I'm not losing sleep over this instance, nor over the killing of OBL. I'm just concerned about Due Process and the Constitution.

Bake

[bvar22]

63. NONE!

Go to a judge,
have him indicted,
and have an Arrest Warrant issued.
Follow the LAW as prescribed in our Constitution.
Problem solved.

Were you as supportive of the Unitary Executive when Bush-the-Lesser grabbed those extra-constitutional powers?
Our system was set up with cross checks among the 3 branches for a REASON.

[hack89]

66. Who is going to serve that arrest warrant?

if it is impossible to serve the warrant, is it ok to kill him then?

[Bake]

68. Ba-BAM! There it is!

That's what you do.

Bake

[Odin2005]

30. That is factually false.

He never legally renounced his citizenship.

[white_wolf]

8. I personally think the U.S. should just drop the charade of following the Constitution.

Everyone knows the government ignores it whenever they want, they should really just be honest and admit we don't have anything resembling a democracy. We're living in a plutocracy.

[Bake]

10. Bingo!

As a Republican once said to me ... "The Bill of Rights is just a goddamn piece of paper."

Bake

[white_wolf]

11. I actually think that was Bush himself who said that.

I believe it was about the Patriot Act being unconstitutional.

[Bake]

12. But but but Congress passed the Patriot Act! It HAS to be legal!

You're right. It was Bush, but it was quoted to me by a Republican acquaintance.

Bake

[coalition_unwilling]

16. Hell, I have proposed that we drop the pretense of having trials

for anyone accused of a capital offense and simply proceed directly to execution. (Wall St. fat cats, please take note.) Due Process is so 20th Century.

[Bake]

33. Sadly true. And we're so OVER due process.....

It's OK because he was a terrorist.

Yeah, HE WAS. So what?

SO FUCKING WHAT???? Does the Constitution make any exceptions from Due Process????

I didn't think so.

Bake

[Rex]

54. BINGO!

Stop pretending to actually give a shit, we all see through that by now (even the dullest dullard). Why not just flat out admit it and do what we want, when we want to! To whoever we want! It is the American way after all. Fuck laws, they are only for the working poor.

[EC]

15. Congress did give him the power (rather Bush the power) to

declare him an enemy combatant. Legal...

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Um, Jim Crow laws and slavery were 'legal' too. Didn't make either just or moral - n/t

[Kahuna]

19. I don't know how you equate jim crow with eliminating a terrorist. nt

[Bake]

36. Because those black people were, you know, enemies of the state.

Terrorists, even.

It's all in the definition. And who gets to decide the definition.

Bake

[JoePhilly]

57. Again, your OP is about what is LEGAL. That is your framing.

That is why you referenced Nixon.

Obama has not undertaken an "illegal act" and then claim that because he did it, it is now "legal".

That is the claim YOU make ... and when people refute it, you seem to drop your original point and run to a new argument.

Here's a suggest ... try to write an OP that has a position that you will stick with and focus on ... and then don't change the foundation of your argument when you can't defend the original argument you made.

No one has said Obama's actions are legal simply because he as President acted.

Or ... maybe you issue is about what is actually "legal" ... that's fine ... write and OP about that and run with it.

[coalition_unwilling]

58. Straw Man Deluxe. I'm not equating Jim Crow with eliminating

a terrorist (alleged). I'm equating the fact that Jim Crow laws in their day were 'legal' with the fact that Congress gave the Executive the 'legal' power to execute people extra-judicially without even the pretense of due process.

The fact that Jim Crow and extra-judicial executions are 'legal' made and makes neither constitutional, moral or just.

Think before you post.

[Melinda]

46. Al-Awaki was never an "enemy combatant".

He was placed on the UN's Security Resolution 1267 sanctions list of individuals suspected of terrorist activities and support. Said sanctions provided for freezing of assets and ban on travel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1267

In April of 2010, the U.S. Treasury Department added him to its list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/16/born-radical-cleric-added-terror-blacklist/

And in that same month and year, Presidenbt Obama signed the Targeted Killing Order.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

But Georgie never declared him an enemy combatant. Prolly cause he wasn't ever on a battlefield. :shrug: Those souls were sent to Guantanamo.

On edit: Yeah, I know. Fox sucks. My bad, but it was the only one I could immediately loacte short of posting several US treasury docs/links to PDF's. Sowwy.

[hack89]

48. I think the "enemy combatant" label was only applied after they were captured

it was not used as justification to kill or arrest them but to hold them indefinitely after capture.

[Melinda]

50. Thanks for fleshing that out for me (us). :-) eom

[AngkorWot]

18. "If you don't support the killing of Al-Alwaki, you're probably an enemy sympathizer."

Sounds kind of dumb, doesn't it?

[Sheepshank]

21. blah bla-bla-blahh

a terrorist is dead...the constant push that this will lead to the President killing off anyone he feels like, is bogus.

[Bake]

25. Really?

I hope you're never declared an enemy of the state. Or maybe you should be, if you don't sdupport the Constitution. Let's see who's crying then?

Bake

[Sheepshank]

49. And just how frequently has this been happening .....

...to those that don't appear to support the Constitution? And YOU declare me and enemy of the State? Where's your constitutional clap trap interpretations now? idiot!

Good lord, the hyperbole is stupid.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bake]

37. So I'm wondering who else is on "The List"

Has Obama ever made The List public? Who else is on it?

I could easily put Bachmann, Romney, and a few others on The List, because I honestly consider them not only political opponents but enemies of the Constitution and thus The State. And I'm sure they could put Dems on The List.

That's why it's so dangerous.

Bake

[NNN0LHI]

40. This good ole boy from California for sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn

Though there appears to be some reports that Bush already whacked him in January 2008 in Waziristan.

[sad sally]

65. The lists are secret - none of American's business who's name is on it.

The same advocates who challenged Awlaki's lethal targeting then are now seeking through the Freedom of Information Act the specific documents and in-house legal opinions the Obama administration used to justify the alleged hit lists.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/30/125807/was-obamas-order-to-kill-al-qaida.html#ixzz1Zr02Fpgw?du

But, good news for those who seem so willing to support the terminator war methods. The drone strike was launched from one of the President's new secret bases. (remember The Terminator series? did anybody root for the machines? these killer robot drones have propelled the US into a moral and ethical war issue that won't have a good ending.)


Friday’s lethal strike on Anwar al-Aulaqi was carried out by a CIA drone operating from a new agency base on the Arabian peninsula, U.S. officials said. It marks the first time that the CIA has launched a drone strike in Yemen since 2002, and the first indication that the new base is operational.

The Obama administration has dramatically expanded the U.S. drone campaign against al-Qaeda over the past two years but, until recently, the CIA did not have easy access to targets in Yemen. The nation is home to an increasingly important affiliate, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, often called AQAP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/aulaqi-first-hit-for-new-drone-base/2011/09/30/gIQASF4eAL_blog.html?du

The Post has withheld details on the specific location of the new drone base at the request of the Obama administration, but the base was intended to improve the ability to hit targets in Yemen, including Aulaqi, U.S. officials have said.

[Bake]

69. Ah, hell, let's just go back to the old days

Instead of secret bases launching drone strikes, let's just open up the silos and launch some ICBMs. Wipe out whole countries ... or continents. I mean, hell, if they're not for us, they're against us. (Wait ... wasn't it Bushie Boy who said that?)

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!

Of course, we may be the only ones left ... for a few months.

We have become that which we profess to hate.

Bake

[MiddleFingerMom]

41. K&R n/t

[Bake]

70. MFM, what are you doing in here?? Get back to Teh Longue!!!!

Who let you out????

:rofl:

:hi:

Bake

[fascisthunter]

55. Excellent Post! (nt)

[hifiguy]

60. Good pernt, Bake!

K&R