welcome, i'm tired of this crap...
Posted on 09/30/2011 7:15:12 PM PDT by Bokababe
Tapper to Carney: "Do you not see at all... does the Administration not see at all how a president asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process and that he's not going to even explain why he thinks that he has that right, is troublesome to some people?"...
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=14642685
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I agree completely. However, I believe the “slippery slope” argument that I have seen used in this thread is perhaps used merely to oppose an act that is morally though not legally correct. I do not at all accept the premise that the act is not “Constitutional.” If the “Constitutionality” of the assassination were argued before the Supreme Court (well it would never get there as it is a “political” not “constitutional” question) you can be damn sure that the act would be upheld by at least seven Justices (five if Bush were POTUS).
While rhetorically one can argue that killing Awlaki opens the door for killing Tea Party members, the better argument is pointing out the President's hypocrisy. Demonstrating he has a pattern of saying one thing but doing another; thereby, eroding his credibility, increases the likelihood that independents will continue to abandon him in favor of a credible (i.e. forthright) alternative. On-the-other-hand, one can also argue that in this instance, it demonstrates pragmatism. Politically, I can't see how it is possible to win by attacking the President for killing an enemy of the U.S. Criticizing the President for this looks like smarmy partisanship.
So, I guess my point is to applaud the death of a terrorist while asking the President to comment on the circumstances under which he approves of assassinating a U.S. born enemy and what proof was there that Awlaki met those standards. Then move on.
Were his planned attacks on innocent American people constitutonal. Hmmm? How come all these idiots get a free pass and when they’re caught it’s ‘’ you gotta be constitutional’’?
I for one make that connection that the President signed the order killing several US Citizens.
So far as I sarcastically stated to a FReeper this morning, 0bama has proven to have more guts than Clinton or Bush in the WOT. He at least is signing orders that they had not.
Is 0bama a hawk in dove’s feathers?
It also concerns me that there was not some sort of ‘due process,’ in court or military tribunal. What is the prosecutable evidence? A bunch of internet videos from an islamic cleric? A jihadi magazine? Where is the murderous trail leading back to these guys? Freedom of religion, free speech, due process...
This is frightening. So many on FR willfully don’t want to see the danger. We are on the verge of civil unrest and the politicals throwing things around .....like Tea Party Terrorists, calling elected representatives as ‘holding the American people hostage,’ 0bama campaigning using warlike rhetoric of ‘put on your marching boots.’ The declarations from the DHS in 2009 pretty much making those of us posting here on FR potential threats. With 0bama, him making that leap I don’t believe to too far of a stretch for him.
Name one person these men killed. I can’t. The Ft. Hood incident? Show the evidence? A few phone calls? Freedom of association. I have not heard any phone recordings...have you?
Such a dangerous thing. What of this guys followers here? As this issue of due process seems to be getting legs...did 0bama actually light the home grown fuse by violating US citizens rights? Maybe that was 0bama’s intent and not our best interest at heart?
No matter how I look at this I don’t see this as a good result.
The insurance companies my not have to pay off, cause 3000+ Americans were snuffed in a very constitutional way. How’s that fit you , queer baits.
I haven’t seen where Obama is even in command and control.
From my perspective, Obama has well tuned his brand of lying, has a strong volition to do what is right in his mind by his standard, and will take any event he perceives and attempt to parlay it into a situation under his control.
His behavior in this situation implies he is fundamentally more Muslim than Christian. Christians tend to believe a right thing must be done in a right way in order to be judged as righteous, while Islam allows any end result within the control of a Muslim to be the final arbiter of righteousness. Islam fundamentally has a weakness in discerning righteous justice.
It would be interesting to witness the exact chain of events which led to the killing of Awlaki. It wouldn’t be surprising if it was fully controlled at a much less senior level, and only ordered by a newly posted commander to manifest his authority in his new position. If Obama had been involved, I wonder if he had directed action against a cell he perceived quite differently than his stated justifications.
If this is the White House rationale for this operation then it explains why Obama didn’t come forward and explain it. Narcissists are very careful about not bringing up and/or changing the subject when things are brought up that involve questioning them or mistakes they made or were involved in. He wouldn’t want to have a citizen/not a citizen discussion. He has enough problems without THAT coming back up.
bttt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_print.html
I don't understand why so many Freepers seem so eager to handcuff our military when it comes to them operating overseas to kill the bad guys who are trying to kill us. This guy was making public statements advocating the mass killing of our fellow citizens, while assisting in the planning and financing of such operations. I, for one, and very glad he is dead. And if I could pee on his grave, I would.
Obama is the CIC, that means that these guys were taken out by order of Obama.
Don’t forget that.
I guess we could also say that Obam isn’t really responsible for a bad economy.
No use tooting up the Constitution when it works for you and not minding if it is ignored when you like the outcome.
Me, too.
The insurance companies my not have to pay off, cause 3000+ Americans were snuffed in a very constitutional way. How’s that fit you , queer baits.
It is an unknown. I have heard it reported though that 0bama signed the order.
Second which many here may not like to consider...we have our CIA/military taking out citizens. Many here think they won’t shoot at us.
The U.S. Case Against Awlaki
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-us-case-against-awlaki/
Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde were American citizens on American soil, were known to law enforcement and were ambushed and killed outright.
And rightfully so.
Aw-Alawki was outside the reach of traditional law enforcement, and capturing him alive was almost certainly not feasible either. He acted with impunity in Yemen, and was never going to stop trying to kill his “fellow” Americans.
Eff him and all around him.
Cogent and relevant, IMHO.
welcome, i'm tired of this crap...
Paul’s very presence proves the power of modern psychiactive drugs ~ they keep him talking.
I still disagree.
The Constitution says “no person...” That could easily be interpreted to mean “no one, anywhere, without regard to nationality” but we interpret that to mean “no citizen”. Obviously, many wars have been fought and many people killed that were not given due process. This low-life renounced his citizenship when he took up arms against us.
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
US Supreme Court re Milligan
December 1866.
With your fervent right-wing extremism you may find yourself on a list of undesirables at some point.
I don't want an America where the president can assassinate citizens at his whim, with no judicial review, on his say so.
Good information..bump.
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.