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.
We've been down this road numerous times, please state what laws Obama has broken in light of the congressional authorization, Supreme Court decisions including ex parte Quirin, and the Laws of War as it applies to unlawful combatants.
Right to due process as found in the Constituion as I've said before. ...that overides...."Laws of War" and USMJ.....by a long shot.
You want to fly planes into our buildings and kill thousands? rule of law for you just ended!?
And whats with this sympathizing with the enemy anyway. either you are on Americas side or you are on the terrorists side,theres no sitting on the fence on this one?
This poor scared soul's argument boils down to this
No "authorization from Congress" allows you to override the Constitution.
If the Congress had indeed overridden the Constitution, which it didn't when it enacted Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224.
Under the Constitution, the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, has full authority to conduct authorized military force as he deems fit.
Quote:
Bush people knew this. That's why Bush sent his lackey Alberto Gonzales to the hospital bed of John Eshcroft to cajole him into signing off on their warrantless wiretapping program. ....Eshcroft told them to F off.
As Herman Cain would opine, apples and oranges. There is a serious distinction between warrantless wire taps and using lethal force against unlawful enemy combatants. And for the hundredth time, simply being an American citizen does not indemnify a person from being designated as such.
No power should be given to the president to kill an citizen.
This goes against the concept of liberty and the justice system we have. When will this be used against other citizens who are labelled terrorist by the state just because they have a different political agenda. IF the tea party started carrying guns on protests would they all be killed in the name of terrorism via the president.
Do we will 12 yr olds next because their parents brainwashed them.
If the Congress had indeed overridden the Constitution, which it didn't when it enacted Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224.
Under the Constitution, the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, has full authority to conduct authorized military force as he deems fit.
As Herman Cain would opine, apples and oranges. There is a serious distinction between warrantless wire taps and using lethal force against unlawful enemy combatants. And for the hundredth time, simply being an American citizen does not indemnify a person from being designated as such.
Only creepy Neocons make your argument. Being Commander in Chief of Armed Forces = "I can do whatever I want to in the name of my Presidential power"...The top legal minds both right and left don't ascribe to your nonsense.
Last edited by padcrasher; 10-21-2011 at 12:31 PM..
Right to due process as found in the Constituion as I've said before. ...that overides...."Laws of War" and USMJ.....by a long shot.
Please note Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
ex Parte Quirin, and since it is obvious that you refuse to read it, allow me to read it to you:
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615 , 617 S., 618. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.
Justice Harlan Stone writing for the majority.
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.
