Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[Avorysuds]

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"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;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

Was our public at danger? Prove it...

Are we in a real war with him? Prove it...

Prove that our public is in danger from Al Qaeda?

There was this big deal about ten years back, you may have heard of it....

Ahh, so you have no proof that the public was in any danger at all... So you defeated your own argument with the constitution.

Were we at War with him? Or is that just a term used without a declaration?

How long do we get to kill people based on what happened 10+ years ago?

How does what happened 10+ years ago make our public unsafe today, or more specific, the day he was killed, hell, the week this man was killed?

Would you say this killing was "pre emptive?" It sure sounds that way.

 

[Sunshine]

RMATL, the clause you quoted is known as the 'Grand Jury exception clause.' Y ou might want to do a little more research as it pertains to people in the US military! What this guy in OUR military?

The Grand Jury Clause guarantees the right to have serious federal criminal charges reviewed by a grand jury to all Americans except military personnel. The Grand Jury Exception Clause reads like this, in bold:


"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."


Why did the First Congress leave the military out of this guarantee? The simplest answer is that they did not want the judiciary meddling at all with control of the military. The Constitution strictly gives authority to regulate the military to the Congress. .

5th Amendment

 

[RadiomanATL]

Was our public at danger? Prove it...

Are we in a real war with him? Prove it...

Prove that our public is in danger from Al Qaeda?

There was this big deal about ten years back, you may have heard of it....

Ahh, so you have no proof that the public was in any danger at all... So you defeated your own argument with the constitution.

Were we at War with him? Or is that just a term used without a declaration?

How long do we get to kill people based on what happened 10+ years ago?

How does what happened 10+ years ago make our public unsafe today, or more specific, the day he was killed, hell, the week this man was killed?

Would you say this killing was "pre emptive?" It sure sounds that way.

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

 

[Sunshine]

Prove that our public is in danger from Al Qaeda?

There was this big deal about ten years back, you may have heard of it....

Ahh, so you have no proof that the public was in any danger at all... So you defeated your own argument with the constitution.

Were we at War with him? Or is that just a term used without a declaration?

How long do we get to kill people based on what happened 10+ years ago?

How does what happened 10+ years ago make our public unsafe today, or more specific, the day he was killed, hell, the week this man was killed?

Would you say this killing was "pre emptive?" It sure sounds that way.

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

 

[Ringel05]

Was our public at danger? Prove it...

Are we in a real war with him? Prove it...

Prove that our public is in danger from Al Qaeda?

There was this big deal about ten years back, you may have heard of it....

Ahh, so you have no proof that the public was in any danger at all... So you defeated your own argument with the constitution.

Were we at War with him? Or is that just a term used without a declaration?

How long do we get to kill people based on what happened 10+ years ago?

How does what happened 10+ years ago make our public unsafe today, or more specific, the day he was killed, hell, the week this man was killed?

Would you say this killing was "pre emptive?" It sure sounds that way.

I guess you haven't been paying attention during the last 10 years or so.

 

[RadiomanATL]

RMATL, the clause you quoted is known as the 'Grand Jury exception clause.' Y ou might want to do a little more research as it pertains to people in the US military! What this guy in OUR military?

The Grand Jury Clause guarantees the right to have serious federal criminal charges reviewed by a grand jury to all Americans except military personnel. The Grand Jury Exception Clause reads like this, in bold:


"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."


Why did the First Congress leave the military out of this guarantee? The simplest answer is that they did not want the judiciary meddling at all with control of the military. The Constitution strictly gives authority to regulate the military to the Congress. .

5th Amendment

From your own link:

The second reason for giving Congress complete control over regulating the military, was to ensure that the military would remain strong. They didn't want a handful of unelected judges to weaken the military right at the time when it was most needed. Instead, they wanted the people to be in charge through their representatives in Congress, who would recognize threats and respond with force if necessary. They also recognized that the functioning of the military is so important to guarding the peace, that they didn't wanted a small group of unelected judges meddling with the operation of the most powerful force in the nation. It was very important to the framers to keep absolute control over the military in the people's hands.

A third reason to keep civilian courts out of military matters is that it would be very unwise to allow courts and judges, who are far removed from the scenes of war, to determine what is proper action on the battlefield. For example, if a soldier killed an enemy during a battle it could be viewed by one person as a justified action in combat. Someone else might look at it and say, the soldier shouldn't have killed the enemy because the enemy had laid down his gun and was going to surrender. In the heat of the battle, decisions might be made by a soldier that would not be made under normal circumstances.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ahh, so you have no proof that the public was in any danger at all... So you defeated your own argument with the constitution.

Were we at War with him? Or is that just a term used without a declaration?

How long do we get to kill people based on what happened 10+ years ago?

How does what happened 10+ years ago make our public unsafe today, or more specific, the day he was killed, hell, the week this man was killed?

Would you say this killing was "pre emptive?" It sure sounds that way.

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Since it does and all....

 

[Ringel05]

Ahh, so you have no proof that the public was in any danger at all... So you defeated your own argument with the constitution.

Were we at War with him? Or is that just a term used without a declaration?

How long do we get to kill people based on what happened 10+ years ago?

How does what happened 10+ years ago make our public unsafe today, or more specific, the day he was killed, hell, the week this man was killed?

Would you say this killing was "pre emptive?" It sure sounds that way.

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Why are some of you so hot on giving these people trials? Is it truly a myopic constitutionally based position (not taking all aspects of constitutionally based law into consideration) or is it something more? Something like the information that could be disclosed by an open trial, like where and how do we get our intelligence.........

 

[Sunshine]

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Since it does and all....

You need to work on your reading comprehension problem!

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Why are some of you so hot on giving these people trials? Is it truly a myopic constitutionally based position (not taking all aspects of constitutionally based law into consideration) or is it something more? Something like the information that could be disclosed by an open trial, like where and how do we get our intelligence.........

You should be more concerned about why the PRESIDENT is so hot on giving trials to FOREIGNERS, bringing them here from a foreign battlefield to stand trail in our civilian courts, and not affording an American citizen the same.

 

[Full-Auto]

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Since it does and all....

You need to work on your reading comprehension problem!

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Why are some of you so hot on giving these people trials? Is it truly a myopic constitutionally based position (not taking all aspects of constitutionally based law into consideration) or is it something more? Something like the information that could be disclosed by an open trial, like where and how do we get our intelligence.........

You should be more concerned about why the PRESIDENT is so hot on giving trials to FOREIGNERS, bringing them here from a foreign battlefield to stand trail in our civilian courts, and not affording an American citizen the same.

It is F'ed up. But it is permissible.

 

[RadiomanATL]

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Since it does and all....

You need to work on your reading comprehension problem!

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Why are some of you so hot on giving these people trials? Is it truly a myopic constitutionally based position (not taking all aspects of constitutionally based law into consideration) or is it something more? Something like the information that could be disclosed by an open trial, like where and how do we get our intelligence.........

You should be more concerned about why the PRESIDENT is so hot on giving trials to FOREIGNERS, bringing them here from a foreign battlefield to stand trail in our civilian courts, and not affording an American citizen the same.

I show you in the constitution and in the writings on the fifth itself where it is allowed, using your own link, and all you can say is that I need to work on my comprehension problem?

 

[Ringel05]

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Since it does and all....

You need to work on your reading comprehension problem!

And you think the Constitution allow the president to kill American citizens without a trial.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Why are some of you so hot on giving these people trials? Is it truly a myopic constitutionally based position (not taking all aspects of constitutionally based law into consideration) or is it something more? Something like the information that could be disclosed by an open trial, like where and how do we get our intelligence.........

You should be more concerned about why the PRESIDENT is so hot on giving trials to FOREIGNERS, bringing them here from a foreign battlefield to stand trail in our civilian courts, and not affording an American citizen the same.

Because he tried that and it didn't work out that well, did it. As for the terrorist that was killed yesterday he was placed on the hit list based on his known ties and activities as a leader of a foreign terrorist group where he had consistently called for jihad against all Americans and since the would include him he obviously, de facto, renounced his citizenship.

 

[Avorysuds]

Prove that our public is in danger from Al Qaeda?

There was this big deal about ten years back, you may have heard of it....

Ahh, so you have no proof that the public was in any danger at all... So you defeated your own argument with the constitution.

Were we at War with him? Or is that just a term used without a declaration?

How long do we get to kill people based on what happened 10+ years ago?

How does what happened 10+ years ago make our public unsafe today, or more specific, the day he was killed, hell, the week this man was killed?

Would you say this killing was "pre emptive?" It sure sounds that way.

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

So you have no proof...

Thing of it is you support a "War" that is a not War but a attack on a tactic... That means Obama, Bush and any future President can use a "Non War" to target and kill anyone they want.

You sir are part of the problem. You can't even prove this man was an immediate danger to the American public. You base his possible future crimes as your reasoning. You cite the constitution then ignore it when it clearly does not agree with you, the part you quoted even.

Grats you turned the Fifth Amendment into the general welfare clause.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ahh, so you have no proof that the public was in any danger at all... So you defeated your own argument with the constitution.

Were we at War with him? Or is that just a term used without a declaration?

How long do we get to kill people based on what happened 10+ years ago?

How does what happened 10+ years ago make our public unsafe today, or more specific, the day he was killed, hell, the week this man was killed?

Would you say this killing was "pre emptive?" It sure sounds that way.

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

So you have no proof...

Thing of it is you support a "War" that is a not War but a attack on a tactic... That means Obama, Bush and any future President can use a "Non War" to target and kill anyone they want.

You sir are part of the problem. You can't even prove this man was an immediate danger to the American public. You base his possible future crimes as your reasoning. You cite the constitution then ignore it when it clearly does not agree with you, the part you quoted even.

Grats you turned the Fifth Amendment into the general welfare clause.

We already get that you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

No need to further convince us of your idiocy

 

[Katzndogz]

It should be a lesson for us. Even the existence of questions should be a lesson. Start trials in absentia, strip these citizens of their citizenship (wrongly given in any case) and start the convictions. We did it already. Bush did it to Adam Ghadan. Start mass trials. Mass tribunals.

he wasn't given citizenship, he was born with it.

Adam Ghadan was born with it too. He was born in Orange County, California. He was stripped of his citizenship, tried in absentia for treason and sentenced to death. It should be done on a mass basis.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

Certainly not the president – guilt or innocence is determined by the courts.

This doesn’t mean, of course, terrorist suspects shouldn’t be pursued by security and intelligence services and taken into custody to stand trial. Should such a suspect offer armed resistance and be killed, it was done in the context of due process.

When the Constitution is ignored, terrorists win.

Correct.

This guy deserved death. He became a enemy combatant.

And that was determined in what court?

In war we execute people who collaborate with the enemy.

After a trial, yes.

Look at the 2 filthy jews who gave our atom bomb secrets away. They were executed.

Again, after a trial.

That nutty American who was caught with the Taliban should be executed. I think his name was Lindh. We even executed a deserter during WW2 during the Battle of the Bulge.

All within the context of due process and the rule of law – something very simple you and others just seem unable to understand.

He was a high level operative in an organization that declared war on us. They attacked us and have killed thousands. We have every reason to believe he was involved in ongoing operations to attack us again.

Then there was sufficient evidence for an indictment and arrest.

 

[Full-Auto]

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

So you have no proof...

Thing of it is you support a "War" that is a not War but a attack on a tactic... That means Obama, Bush and any future President can use a "Non War" to target and kill anyone they want.

You sir are part of the problem. You can't even prove this man was an immediate danger to the American public. You base his possible future crimes as your reasoning. You cite the constitution then ignore it when it clearly does not agree with you, the part you quoted even.

Grats you turned the Fifth Amendment into the general welfare clause.

We already get that you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

No need to further convince us of your idiocy

drunk driving is a public danger, the amount we spend on deterrence varies quite a bit though.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So you have no proof...

Thing of it is you support a "War" that is a not War but a attack on a tactic... That means Obama, Bush and any future President can use a "Non War" to target and kill anyone they want.

You sir are part of the problem. You can't even prove this man was an immediate danger to the American public. You base his possible future crimes as your reasoning. You cite the constitution then ignore it when it clearly does not agree with you, the part you quoted even.

Grats you turned the Fifth Amendment into the general welfare clause.

We already get that you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

No need to further convince us of your idiocy

drunk driving is a public danger, the amount we spend on deterrence varies quite a bit though.

 

[Avorysuds]

There you have it. You think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

Good to know that you're an idiot

So you have no proof...

Thing of it is you support a "War" that is a not War but a attack on a tactic... That means Obama, Bush and any future President can use a "Non War" to target and kill anyone they want.

You sir are part of the problem. You can't even prove this man was an immediate danger to the American public. You base his possible future crimes as your reasoning. You cite the constitution then ignore it when it clearly does not agree with you, the part you quoted even.

Grats you turned the Fifth Amendment into the general welfare clause.

We already get that you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

No need to further convince us of your idiocy

They don't... Not anymore than many other areas and people in the world. More people die by illegal aliens in this country every year than from your evil Al Qaeda.

 

[Avorysuds]

We already get that you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

No need to further convince us of your idiocy

drunk driving is a public danger, the amount we spend on deterrence varies quite a bit though.

Al Qaeda is so "omg evil" that you have to go back ten years to their only real attack on the US... More people die or get hurt from countless other activities or hate in this country. Gangs kill more, cars kill more, drinking kills more than this great evil that you claim is reason to erode our constitution.

You are weak and scared.