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 ...
Congress did that.
BTW, since I don't know what your husband thinks about Jews I really can't comment on his comment. Like maybe he wants Obama to attack Jews or something.
Or maybe get in his own hand at a couple of hours of waterboarding.
Love your tag line........
Meaning that since Obama thinks that he is as answerable to no one as Hitler was, who will be his next target?
You can imagine what a mess we'd have if we were invaded and some yahoo tried to convince everybody that we needed to indict the invading enemy troops first, by name, age, grade ~ before shooting back!
I think we would hang the yahoo by his neck instantly ~ for treason.
At some point in any catastrophic situation some things are reduced to ignorable trivia.
Yes.
Even if that did apply to killing Al Awalki (see #47 & #60), since when did the law restrict the actions of Obama’s administration?
* fast & furious
* Chrysler bond holders
* black panthers intimidating voters
* ObamaCare
* etc
Here is the entire text of the 5th.
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 offence 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.
Show me where it says any of what you claim it does. Although we should try to use the intent of the founders to interpret the document, this interpretation is limited to the words of the document. In your case, your purposeful interpretation has the same foundation in the text as does any liberal’s purposive interpretation of the spending clause or of the commerce clause (i.e. there is no textual basis).
Also, no on is disputing that the CIC can repel an invasion or fight a war. But, this was neither an invasion nor a declared war. Further, the target was a U.S. citizen. This action sets a dangerous precedent as to what a president can do in the pursuit of public safety. While the target was surely an evil man, evil does not negate the Constitution. It is practical, on occasion, to ignore the bounds set by the Constitution, but we would all be in a much better position if the were applied in every circumstance. Although terrorists have killed thousands, limitless governments have killed tens of millions.
We already have balance of power, freedom of speech and elections. What else would you like to see that doesn't make us vulnerable to our enemies?
Precisely.
Not when the president brags about it.
This wasn't a "he got taken out in a larger operation" or "while attacking us". This was Obama bragging, "Look how tough I am that I can sign, seal and deliver a death warrant on a US citizen while denying him any defense because I've labeled him a terrorist. And, by the way, I won't even be questioned on it."
It's not about Awlaki; it's about Obama thinking that he is above the law, with no checks or balances to his power allowed.
Go back and read Posts 11 or 12 (they’re duplicate posts).
“I see your point.”
It is such a pleasure to see you say that. It is SO rare these days it’s pretty much kept me from commenting; cuz, “what’s the use?” is far more common than your exception here.
“Al Queda is not a foreign state.
He was not serving in forces belonging to Yemen or any other foreign state.
Al Queda is not a political subdivision,”
All of that is irrelevant. He joined an organization that officially declared war on the United States. He was directly involved with Hassan, UnderWear Bomber, Time Square Bombing attempt. He is the organizational leader of the strongest AQ affilliate group AQ in the Arabian Peninsula.
Where is the controversy again? I’d slit his throat in a second if I could.
“What nation does Al Queda belong to? Whose agents are they working as?”
Oh boy, so libertarians are now reduced to getting AQ terrorists out on technicalities lol.
He chose to go to war with the US by joining a terror group that has declared war on the United States.
There is no controversy her except for the feeble minded.
Here is the text.
This presumes two things: First, that Awlaki be guilty of a "capital or otherwise nefarious crime" and there has been no such finding, so you fail that test. Second, when that specific American citizen has been declared by a court or by Congress to be an enemy in a declared war, or guilty of nefarious crimes and a source of public danger, he can be taken out. You fail that test too. You are therefore (willfully) conflating a declared war with a vague and unspecified "war on terror" where the "enemy" remains legally undefined.
Nice try, but without Constitutional merit, because it flies in the face of the separation of powers that is a central operating principle in all capital instances involving citizens, war or crime. In fact, it is arguable that the Constitution extends these protections to NON-citizens by virtue of its use of the word "person," instead of "citizen." For an American citizen to become an "enemy" that enemy needs to be named and defined by Congress or adjudicated as such by a court; else it becomes killing by executive whim, such as we see here.
By your definition, YOU are an enemy, as defined under the War Powers Act of 1933 and the Trading with the Enemy Act of the same date. So I suppose you don't care about that a bit. Worse, by your membership here on FR, you meet the criteria established by Janet Napoletano as a "potential terrorist." Ah but we know you'll sleep well because you think the government that pays your retirement can be trusted! History suggests otherwise.
It PAINS me to say this, because I despise radical MoosLimbs, but yer right.
Couple that with what he said about having a civilian national security force that's, "...just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded..." as the military.
“So, no, serving in the armed forces of a foreign state as an officer (even assuming that Awlaki did so) would not be enough to cause loss of citizenship.”
His citizenship status is absolutely irrelevant. Clinton mistake that got us into this mess was he tried to legally prosecute terrorists who declared war on the US.
Al Alwaki joined AQ, a terror groups that declared and waged war on the US. He joined the war against our Nation and that makes him an enemy combatant...a target to be killed, not indicted.
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.