Posted on 01/25/2018 9:31:08 AM PST by ransomnote
Anyone who thinks these individuals are above the law is not thinking clearly.
Any attempt to protect these individuals from the legal consequences of their crimes will fail.
“Jose Padilla didn’t conspire to assassinate a US president.”
Not really relevant, since only the “enemy combatant” part of your question might have any impact on how someone would be treated judicially.
Is there any evidence that such individuals have suffered any consequences for their actions?
If you conspire with a foreign agent to bring harm to the US president, you are engaging in an act of war and you are an enemy combatant.
Losing the 2016 presidential election was a major slapdown.
Trump winning the electionwas a miracle of God. The more we learn of the degree to which the intelligence agencies plotted against him, the greater the miracle appears.
“If you conspire with a foreign agent to bring harm to the US president, you are engaging in an act of war and you are an enemy combatant.”
Perhaps, but if the best legal team that George W. Bush put together couldn’t make that stick, I doubt that you will succeed where they failed.
Have you not seen things are different now?
What, you think we suddenly have a different Constitution and stuff like habeas corpus or right to trial by jury doesn’t exist anymore?
You mean when the they plot with foreign agents to bring harm to a sitting president?
You mean the part of the Constitution where it says the President can take executive action against enemies of the United States?
“You mean the part of the Constitution where it says the President can take executive action against enemies of the United States?”
Which part is that exactly?
Have you never seen the Constitution?
Of course I have. Why are you avoiding answering the question?
You cited a certain “part of Constitution”. I would like you to specify which part of the Constitution you are referring to. It should be simple, since the Constitution is divided into Articles and Sections for easy reference.
Are you sure you want me to be the one to tell you?
It’ll make you look like you didn’t know. I’m giving you a chance here.
Still stalling? How hard can it be to cite the section you are referring to?
You cited something, and it’s only proper to provide the exact citation when requested. Either provide it, or admit you can’t.
I didn’t say I was stalling, I said I was giving you a chance.
Read the first line of Article two Section two.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Hmm, help me out here, where exactly in that line does it say: “the President can take executive action against enemies of the United States”, as you claimed?
bfl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.