Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Glen Greenwald would be considered a leftist by most folks. One I happen to agree with on this issue. So, for those of you claiming no one on the left is decrying this action...here you go:
Really, all this proves is that neither the last administration nor this one has any regard for our laws and principles. I am afraid to say that the terrorists have won a battle: They have reduced us to the same base-level human garbage that we purport to fight.
Good job, America, for falling for this. I, for one, have lost some respect. We now officially assassinate our citizens. How is this different from any other regime?
What gets me is all the armchair Monday morning quarterbacking from people who - if they were the Commander-in-Chief - would evidently use information freely available on the internet or in the newspaper to make decisions on national security. Unless of course the critics of thise course of action are in fact state department employees, in which case I would like to see some information beyond what is publicly available as to what Anwar al-Awlaki was up to.
Face it, the POTUS that right wingers kept telling us was buddy-buddy with terrorists and Islamic jihadists is doing a damn good job of taking out some serious threats to the US. And the Right can't seem to stand it because it doesn't fit in with the caricature, the Left can't stand it because it makes Obama look like he is out-Bushing GW.
I cannot stand BO and have long known he is and will go down in history as the worst President we have had in our history.
However, that said, this action was absolutely the correct action. As was stated above, there is without a doubt documentation and proof of the danger to our Country from any of these Al-Queda radicals, no matter of what country their citizenship resides within the Top Secret and Secret files of our CIA. Any such information/documentation MUST remain in those guarded files to protect the processes and people who are the ones who actually keep us safe by their diligent work around the world. We will never know the details and should never know those details.
I would like every one posting here of "citizens rights" and quoting our Constitution (which, by the way, is only valid within our borders...any citizen getting in trouble outside of same can only hope for "talks" from our State Department, maybe, if their activities are not predicated in war against the U.S.) would put themselves in the position of suddenly being attacked by explosives, deadly chemicals, deadly germs, etc., etc., and being killed as a result or family members being killed as a result while standing in your front yard or shopping at the local store or attending your local church. Think about it before you make stupid statements.
Citizens, domestic, within the U.S. vs. enemies against the US on foreign soil ... get your head on straight! We are at war with terrorists! This is a war against individual radicals, not a country as has been the case in the past.
Lorry, whenever a government erodes the rights of its citizens it is on the pretext that it is justified in a time of war or some other crisis. Actions set precedents. Yes, by all accounts, this guy looks like someone who deserved death. However, he was a U.S. citizen. So now, we have the armed forces being used to kill a U.S. citizen without due process.
The next time, it will probably be a guy who really appears to deserve death too. But this guy may be living in Chicago. Where does it stop?
Our forefathers lived in a society that recognized the basic rights of citizens. However, due to extentuating circumstances (a war of all things... the French and Indian war), the government was taking advantage of its citizens. They established a Constitution to keep tyranny at bay.
We're allowing this Constitution to be trampled on. For several decades now, we have allowed our presidents to go to war without congressional approval. We see where that has gotten us. We now live in a state of prepetual war. Does anyone really think that we will ever not be at war? Regardless of which party is in power? This is what happens when a single person gets to decide if a nation goes to war or not. Wars aggrandize a king's power. It's just too tempting, and the reasons are too compelling, for a king not to declare war. (That's why this power was reserved for Congress.)
Now, we're allowing our "kings" (presidents) to decide which American citizens deserve death without a trial? Bad, bad precedent. Fast forward a few decades from now, and you're going to have a government that uses the armed forces to break down doors in places like Idaho and Mississippi to kill Americans who are supposedly a threat to the nation.
How do you know this? Do you have access to State Department files?
It would have nothing to do with what's in state department files. I was making the point that the president might have a case for overriding the law under his Article II powers in a situation where there as an imminent and dire threat to the country (hard to argue in this case). If the person did have his citizenship removed, that would be public information as it would require an administrative hearing. They also would have likely made that detail known had it been so. They have not made the case that this individual was not a U.S. citizen but instead have attempted to justify the killing of a citizen. I don't see any way under the law that that can work.
Now, we're allowing our "kings" (presidents) to decide which American citizens deserve death without a trial? Bad, bad precedent. Fast forward a few decades from now, and you're going to have a government that uses the armed forces to break down doors in places like Idaho and Mississippi to kill Americans who are supposedly a threat to the nation.
Ruby Ridge and Katrina come to mind.
And, let's not forget the church-burning in Texas.
At least church burnings usually only happen in the South, and they are always done by Whitey.
Republicans burn down black churches, Democrats burn down white churches.
I would like every one posting here of "citizens rights" and quoting our Constitution (which, by the way, is only valid within our borders....
Absolutely and totally wrong. So wrong that your entire argument is put in doubt by your false premise.
The Bill of Rights does not address what PEOPLE can do. It addresses what THE GOVERNMENT can do, or more specifically, what the government SHALL NOT do.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law . . .
Amendment 2
. . . shall not be infringed.
Amendment 4
. . . shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue,
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer . . .
And denying due process is something that the US government cannot do, anywhere in the world, because it is the US government that is itself bound by the Constitution, and the founders were very careful to say it in exactly that manner.
President Obama's did not take an oath to create jobs or to make banks profitable to their shareholders, he took an oath to defend that ^^^ Constitution. And yesterday, he didn't just wilfully refuse to defend the Constitution, he rescinded and abrogated it.
"We are the change that we seek."
--Barack Obama, Feb 5, 2008.
Little did we suspect that Obama's change would make our Bill of Rights even less secure than under Bush.
Lorry, whenever a government erodes the rights of its citizens it is on the pretext that it is justified in a time of war or some other crisis. Actions set precedents. Yes, by all accounts, this guy looks like someone who deserved death. However, he was a U.S. citizen. So now, we have the armed forces being used to kill a U.S. citizen without due process.
Your argument is fallacious because you draw a line between the rights of citizens and the rights of non-citizens, a line that does not exist in the Constitution with regards to the relevant rights enumerated in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th Amendments.
If you wish to argue that the targeting of any alleged terrorist is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, that is one debate, but to argue that alleged terrorist that are U.S. citizens have some exclusive claim to the Bill of Rights you are clearly just wrong.
Quote:
Where does it stop?
It stops with the Congress who in 2001 authorized the President to:
to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Quote:
For several decades now, we have allowed our presidents to go to war without congressional approval.
Your argument is fallacious because you draw a line between the rights of citizens and the rights of non-citizens, a line that does not exist in the Constitution with regards to the relevant rights enumerated in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th Amendments.
You are merely a 14th Amendment citizen.
The terrorist is most likely not, therefore, he IS protected under the first 10 Amendments. He has, by his acts, rescinded his 14th Amendment status.
He is an individual.
You sir, are a corporation, a mere person. You are a construct.
Your veil get thinner each year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
If you wish to argue that the targeting of any alleged terrorist is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, that is one debate, but to argue that alleged terrorist that are U.S. citizens have some exclusive claim to the Bill of Rights you are clearly just wrong.
Terrorism is a crime, even when the Government does it to its own people.
(Isn't that what we hung on Saddam?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
It stops with the Congress who in 2001 authorized the President to:
to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The Constitution does not empower the Congress to rewrite the Constitution at will.
Congress's powers are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, which does not allow for bullschit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
That is just factually wrong (see above).
You are factually challenged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
