Posted on 10/02/2011 10:30:33 AM PDT by Bokababe
Judge Napolitano, "When the president can kill whoever he wants, he's not a president anymore, he's a King."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnem1Ohm3Q0&feature=player_embedded
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
You don't get it. We are fighting a "War on Terror", not just a "War on al Qaeda". A couple of years ago, Janet Napolitano listed potential "terrorists" as being identified by "a Gadsden flag".
Can you not see the potential abuse of this policy in the wrong hands?
The is NOT about al Awlaki, who probably deserved what he got. This is about the power that you allow a president -- any president!
He wasn't when he was killed.
What should the CIA have done? Gotten a warrant and served him in Yemen and extradited him to the U.S.? If Bush had done this, would you have felt differently? And to say he was an American citizen is a stretch. He was an anchor baby and it has been reported he had dual citizenship. Maybe we just killed the Yemen citizen. Anyway, I say it was a good call.
He was living in a foreign country, operating as at war with the USA. What makes you think he was a US citizen?
The Fifth Amendment specifically states that the CIC can kill an enemy in a public emergency and he doesn’t need an indictment to take the puke to trial..
With the ending of DADT, he’s the King of queens..
LOL!!!
No, you are the one who doesn’t get it. Read post #11.
Fifth Amendment covers it all.
Ain't that the truth. That's why it takes ten years for the greatest military in the world to take out a bunch of 7th century ragbags. It's time for the U.S. military to take a break and let the lawyers and politicians fight one out with these morons using the rules they put on the U.S. military.
If so, it should not be hard to get a judicial finding as such, authorizing use of force against said citizen, for which there was certainly time in this instance. That would be due process. This is not.
Janet Napoletano, chief of Homeland Security, has already issued a written opinion that conservative activists are "potential terrorists." How close to home does this have to get for you to get a clue?
It's the process that is at issue here, not the target.
I could argue either side of this controversy, but let me ask you this: How do we know if a targeted person is a traitor (taken up arms against the US)? The only news you and I get is from the same presidential administration and media that has previously lied and distorted news. And that’s just the news we know about. Heaven knows what we never hear of at all.
Where are "unalienable rights" or "limited Constitutional government" in that justification? The United States has been operating under a state of emergency continuously since 1933.
The problem is the hypocrisy.
Concerned to the point of absurdity over the rights of terrorists at GITMO...
Blow this guy up without a thought about his rights or due process...
Understood -- and agree.
My big question is why is everyone here making the defense for Obama's actions that he isn't making for himself? Why isn't he telling the American people why this is "an exception"?
I've got a good guess why -- because it's likely not "an exception" -- there are other Americans on his hit list. He just hasn't gotten to them yet and he's keeping his options open.
Huh? What part of the 5th amendment covers this? There is an exception for “cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” Are you seriously suggesting that Awlaki’s case arose “out of” the land or naval forces or in the Militia? That would presuppose that Awlaki was in the land or naval forces or in the Militia of the United States at the time of his case.
I know you are not suggesting that Awlaki’s killing was justified by the fact that the US is at war, since, as we all know, the US is not, in fact, at war. War can only be declared by Congress, and Congress has not declared War, so we are not in a state of War. Like it or not, that’s the fact.
If it is the passage that I am looking at, it says "in times of ACTUAL war". Show me where Congress declared "ACTUAL war" on Yemen.
We are at war with a tactic -- "Terror" -- not a specific country, nor has the government specifically declared it only on al Qaeda. The legal options have been kept open to mean anyone, anywhere, any time the government declares you to be an enemy of the state. Obama was just the first to exercise this open ended option using extreme prejudice.
How far are you willing to go? Would you take out a murderous anti-American Saudi prince visiting Australia and brag about it on TV? Would you send a drone into London to take out a suspected Syrian bomber touring with his family?
Getting rid of suspected terrorists with a tidy drone strike or Seal Team raid, without regard for the rights of individuals or nations, is really satisfying in some ways, but is it bad for our Republic? I say yes. Are we playing with fire insofar as worldwide conflict? Yes, again.
“He wasn’t when he was killed.”
I am not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean he had renounced? Do you mean they US had revoked? Do you mean dead people have no citizenship?
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.