does anyone have a problem with executing Americans without due process ??

[JakeStarkey]

The case was not made.

You wish to circumscribe the President's war powers, and that is not your duty.

 

[easyt65]

The case was not made.


The case was not made'....in YOUR mind. Doesn't make it so.

You wish to circumscribe the President's war powers, and that is not your duty.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President of the united States can have his own personal drone assassination program where he can nominate, approve, and give the order to have someone assassinated?

Again, do you accept / acknowledge the contradictory message / acts of declaring terrorists should have their day in court while simultaneously releasing some out-right while assassinating others?! It's like a 'multi-personality' approach instead of a consistent approach.

One either believes that terrorists on the battle field ARE terrorists and should be treated like one or they are 'belligerents' who should be brought to justice. Obama cherry-picks what he wants to do when he wants to do it. There is no consistent strategy ... except for what he wants to do at the time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The case was not made.

You wish to circumscribe the President's war powers, and that is not your duty.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President of the united States can have his own personal drone assassination program where he can nominate, approve, and give the order to have someone assassinated?

Again, do you accept / acknowledge the contradictory message / acts of declaring terrorists should have their day in court while simultaneously releasing some out-right while assassinating others?! It's like a 'multi-personality' approach instead of a consistent approach.

One either believes that terrorists on the battle field ARE terrorists and should be treated like one or they are 'belligerents' who should be brought to justice. Obama cherry-picks what he wants to do when he wants to do it. There is no consistent strategy ... except for what he wants to do at the time.

I acknowledge that you have not made a case for circumscribing the President's war powers. When someone makes a worthy case, I will notify you.

 

[easyt65]

I acknowledge that you have not made a case for circumscribing the President's war powers. When someone makes a worthy case, I will notify you.

So you can't point out SPECIFCALLY anywhere in the Constitution where Obama has the authority to have his own drone assassination program...got it.

If you 'love' the War Powers Act so much and want to use it to justify Obama's acts, then why don't you use it to condemn him for his acts as well?

Specifically Obama VIOLATED the War Powers Act during his own private war in Libya to help Al Qaeida kill Qaddafi and take over the country. Obama executed his authority to take the country to war on his own using the War Powers Act - he had to do so because there was no way in HELL he would be able to make the case to take the country to war to help the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11/01 or the case that there was an imminent threat that had to be dealt with at that very moment.

Where Obama violated the War Powers Act was when he ran out of his defined, allotted time in which he was authorized to use the military without Congressional approval, which he never got in the 1st place. When the time expired, Obama refused to go before Congress to ask for an extension / to continue to use the military...because AGAIN he knew there was no way in hell he could make a case. Instead he continued to use the military until the job was done, in violation of the War Powers Act!

In FACT, though, Obama -using the US Military to help Al Qaeida take over Libya - himself argued the War Powers Act didn't even apply. So he took the country to warm usin gour military to target and destroy another nation's military and overthrow the President of another country on what basis?
LINK: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...KPlE27HJhb9PxSGYYdyH-A&bvm=bv.113370389,d.eWE

Obama's Illegal War: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...JNGQ2a-C6HppoIYGtoF9lg&bvm=bv.113370389,d.eWE

Funny how Obama was against a President using the War Powers Act when he wasn't President....

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are incorrect with "Obama VIOLATED the War Powers Act" and outright lying with "Obama -using the US Military to help Al Qaeida take over Libya".

 

[easyt65]

You are incorrect with "Obama VIOLATED the War Powers Act" and outright lying with "Obama -using the US Military to help Al Qaeida take over Libya".

Nice Opinion there, Jake....The Links I posted and the WPA itself disagrees with that opinion

Obama took the US to war on his own.

He never went to Congress to ask if he could use the military to do so.

He DID use our military to help Al Qaeida defeat / overthrow / kill Qaddafi

Al Qaeida did take over Libya

It took more than 60 days for it all to happen

The WPA grants the President 60 days use of the military before having to go to Congress to ask for approval to continue using the military -

Obama refused to go before Congress.


Funny thing is how numerous media outlets posted the story how Qaddafi was actually trying to warn the world at the time of an Islamic Extremist rising...he requested to address the world about the threat ... but he was killed before he could do so ... with the help of our military... thanks to Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your links give an assertion without effective support. I understand the far right want to bring those war powers down for several reasons, but the fact remains the Constitution is quite clear about the environment of Presidential war powers. The presidency is cloaked with immense powers, and I clearly understand why the far right wants to limit it.

 

[g5000]

eric holder , you remember, wanted to try the guitmo detainees in New York city, it was as bad an idea as buzzing manhattan with airforce one, Trump probably won't do that, because of his New York values.

Why is it a bad idea, exactly? Be specific.

Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations tried terrorists in New York. What the hell are you chickenshits afraid of?

Do you think these criminals possess some kind of supernatural powers that are activated on US soil or something?

Can the president kill you? The short answer is: Yes, but not legally.

The short answer is yes, legally.

i have to consider, if obama had been republican would the libs be as ok with it as they are now.

See, this is why I call you rubes goldfish. You have really, really short memories like goldfish.

Republican President Bush killed an American citizen with a drone in Yemen.

It is happening here.

No. It isn't. It is happening in war zones overseas where you can't sent a beat cop to arrest someone.

Idiot.

 

[BlindBoo]

No problem at all with killing an American who joins and become an operative of al Qaeda or any other group dedicated to killing American citizens.

The Anwar al-Awlaki File

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every American citizen who is actively furthering the operations of any group trying to kill American citizens can be droned.

 

[washamericom]

"does anyone have a problem with executing Americans without due process ??"

'Not as long as Barry is doing it', right my 'Obamapologists'?

The President of the United States, or any 1 person, should not have their own personal Drone Assassination program. Articles have been posted before showing how Obama controls (approves) whoever is placed on his 'Kill List', and ONLY Obama has the authority to 'ok' an assassination. FOUL.

Obama used the excuse that terrorists - to include every one of the terrorists in GITMO - deserved their 'due process' in a US court....before he started denying them that due process by assassinating them with his drone strikes. (As for the 'due process' of the Gitmo detainees, Obama also began foregoing the exercise of that due process by simply releasing them for expediency's sake.)

Killing Americans...
- Do you mean through drone strikes?

- Do you mean being warned of terrorists in our midst and doing nothing, allowing them to kill and maim people with homemade rice-cooker bombs?

- Do you mean like abandoning them to die, like he and Hillary did Stevens?

- Do you mean by giving a terrorist a Visa and letting them come in and kill 12 Americans?

- Do you mean like driving a tank into a building containing women and children?

- Do you mean like killing a woman and child like at Ruby Ridge?

You have to be more specific, and - in the end - you just have to remember...it's nothing personal. It's just 'business'...

thank you, i was pretty sure holder wanted American customs and rights to apply to the gitmo prisoner dickheads, but i'm glad you confirmed.

it sickens me that this administration treat the enemy better than the allies and our own citizens, many people on this subject say more than that (stronger words).

obama is the new york times/washington post of presidents

 

[washamericom]

Case law does not protect citizens who are beyond the reach of normal LEO operations. There is no due process protection if you are Wash Wahabi calling for the overthrow of America by violence, support violent operations, etc.

what's leo jake ?

Wash, if you or me or any of us are doing those bad things beyond the normal reach of LEO or military reach, we have no due process rights. Are you doing things you should not be doing?

i'm not sure where you are going with this. are you insinuating something here jake ??

Insinuating something, wash? Nope. I am stating that Americans who are aiding and abetting violent actions against our government and our fellow citizens and are beyond the normal reach of LEO or military capture are fair targets for drones, and that includes "if you or me or any of us". You are insinuating the government does not have the legal power. You are wrong.

then what is due process for jake, what about trial by jury for citizens ?
are you saying our government can kill American here and abroad, cause i think some folks have a problem with that. i know i remember obama saying that "we can't just keep them without trying the quickly (speedy trial). but that was 6 or 7 years ago.

i think you are wrong about executions by the president bypassing #6. i'd like to see what precedents you can point to. other presidents have done this ?


ergo: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]


i believe this is concurrent to innocent till proven guilty.

 

[washamericom]

easyt, stop your partisan nonsense.

This is about how the Office of the President deals with the issue of droning terrorists.

Start another thread and stop trolling.

now you're coaching people on my thread ? this is why you are jake starkey, and no one else is...

why don't you go hall monitor somewhere else, i'd say start another thread, but your threads usually suck and i don't want you to be all alone. heh

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am telling you that your argument about 'due process' has nothing to do with the droning of our citizens in other lands. They are aiding and abetting the enemy who is killing our and others' peoples. If one puts himself out of reach of the LEO and the military, drones and cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs are quite possibly in that that person's future.

The argument of "due process" is not a legitimate defense for protecting people involved in terrorism. Surrender and come in and face the music.

Cops killed John Dillinger as well as Bonnie and Clyde without warning in ambushes. One was on the streets of Chicago, the other on a Louisiana back road that I know well. Why? They would not surrender, and they were too dangerous to apprehend.

Your hatred of the government (yours and others like you) unhinges you from fact and reason.

 

[washamericom]

I am telling you that your argument about 'due process' has nothing to do with the droning of our citizens in other lands. They are aiding and abetting the enemy who is killing our and others' peoples. If one puts himself out of reach of the LEO and the military, drones and cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs are quite possibly in that that person's future.

The argument of "due process" is not a legitimate defense for protecting people involved in terrorism. Surrender and come in and face the music.

Cops killed John Dillinger as well as Bonnie and Clyde without warning in ambushes. One was on the streets of Chicago, the other on a Louisiana back road that I know well. Why? They would not surrender, and they were too dangerous to apprehend.

Your hatred of the government (yours and others like you) unhinges you from fact and reason.

those are good examples, i believe they unconstitutional. and the details, we're they given an opportunity to surrender ? nothing new about shoot to kill. i think they anonymity of the drone adds a new dynamic. this may see the supreme court. it's a slippery slope to be sure.

this too:
Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'
President Barack Obama has the authority to use an unmanned drone strike to kill US citizens on American soil, his attorney general has said.

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

i'm not sure why but this reminded me of patty hearst and the sla.

i don't hate the government, i want to see it run by and serve the people, not the politicians getting rich. hate is overused like racism, you guys diluted the terms. we'll have to come up with new ones.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People cannot allow violent people to run amuck.

When such people do that in the examples we have seen, then the Constitution requires the President and his people to take appropriate action.

I understand we disagree.

 

[washamericom]

We the People cannot allow violent people to run amuck.

When such people do that in the examples we have seen, then the Constitution requires the President and his people to take appropriate action.

I understand we disagree.

me too, i think it's yet unsettled, like eligibility. we also have covert assassination i'm sure, that's still another element.

if it's ok to mishandle state secrets, ok to lie about events for political gain to win elections, ok to tap citizen communication, and ok to execute citizens by transcending/circumventing the constitution via executive order... is that what they mean by progressive ??

 

[BlindBoo]

I am telling you that your argument about 'due process' has nothing to do with the droning of our citizens in other lands. They are aiding and abetting the enemy who is killing our and others' peoples. If one puts himself out of reach of the LEO and the military, drones and cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs are quite possibly in that that person's future.

The argument of "due process" is not a legitimate defense for protecting people involved in terrorism. Surrender and come in and face the music.

Cops killed John Dillinger as well as Bonnie and Clyde without warning in ambushes. One was on the streets of Chicago, the other on a Louisiana back road that I know well. Why? They would not surrender, and they were too dangerous to apprehend.

Your hatred of the government (yours and others like you) unhinges you from fact and reason.

those are good examples, i believe they unconstitutional. and the details, we're they given an opportunity to surrender ? nothing new about shoot to kill. i think they anonymity of the drone adds a new dynamic. this may see the supreme court. it's a slippery slope to be sure.

this too:
Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'
President Barack Obama has the authority to use an unmanned drone strike to kill US citizens on American soil, his attorney general has said.

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

i'm not sure why but this reminded me of patty hearst and the sla.

i don't hate the government, i want to see it run by and serve the people, not the politicians getting rich. hate is overused like racism, you guys diluted the terms. we'll have to come up with new ones.

Frightening headlines but read just a little and you'll find that he was asked if he could think of any situation where the president could......."justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks."

 

[washamericom]

I am telling you that your argument about 'due process' has nothing to do with the droning of our citizens in other lands. They are aiding and abetting the enemy who is killing our and others' peoples. If one puts himself out of reach of the LEO and the military, drones and cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs are quite possibly in that that person's future.

The argument of "due process" is not a legitimate defense for protecting people involved in terrorism. Surrender and come in and face the music.

Cops killed John Dillinger as well as Bonnie and Clyde without warning in ambushes. One was on the streets of Chicago, the other on a Louisiana back road that I know well. Why? They would not surrender, and they were too dangerous to apprehend.

Your hatred of the government (yours and others like you) unhinges you from fact and reason.

those are good examples, i believe they unconstitutional. and the details, we're they given an opportunity to surrender ? nothing new about shoot to kill. i think they anonymity of the drone adds a new dynamic. this may see the supreme court. it's a slippery slope to be sure.

this too:
Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'
President Barack Obama has the authority to use an unmanned drone strike to kill US citizens on American soil, his attorney general has said.

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

i'm not sure why but this reminded me of patty hearst and the sla.

i don't hate the government, i want to see it run by and serve the people, not the politicians getting rich. hate is overused like racism, you guys diluted the terms. we'll have to come up with new ones.

Frightening headlines but read just a little and you'll find that he was asked if he could think of any situation where the president could......."justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks."

it's an interesting subject, because laserdrones are the next thing. another qualifier of course would be a direct link to the CiC, especially the constitutional scholar kind.. thanks BB

 

[washamericom]

I am telling you that your argument about 'due process' has nothing to do with the droning of our citizens in other lands. They are aiding and abetting the enemy who is killing our and others' peoples. If one puts himself out of reach of the LEO and the military, drones and cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs are quite possibly in that that person's future.

The argument of "due process" is not a legitimate defense for protecting people involved in terrorism. Surrender and come in and face the music.

Cops killed John Dillinger as well as Bonnie and Clyde without warning in ambushes. One was on the streets of Chicago, the other on a Louisiana back road that I know well. Why? They would not surrender, and they were too dangerous to apprehend.

Your hatred of the government (yours and others like you) unhinges you from fact and reason.

wiki:. Federal agents, led by Melvin Purvis andSamuel P. Cowley, moved to arrest Dillinger as he exited the theater. He pulled a weapon and attempted to flee but was shot four times and killed.[3]

The May 23 New York Times wrote that a group of Texas rangers and other authorities laid a “carefully laid death trap,” and as Bonnie and Clyde approached, they “riddled them and their car with a deadly hail of bullets.” After the car crashed, “the officers, taking no chances with the gunman who had tricked them so often, poured another volley of bullets into the machine.”


looks like one of each... and it was eighty years ago.

how many chances would someone get before they get zapped like a bug.