Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
Art. 3 Section 3 states
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
You are entitled to an opinion.
But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.
Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
Art. 3 Section 3 states
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
You are entitled to an opinion.
But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.
Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
Well hell jake I know you want the Constitution gone, Congress approves of what you want, so they created a bill that will do exactly that jake. And what will jake say then? Its the law. Do you have little scearcrowmen dancing around in your head saying if I only have a brain?
This above makes no sense.
One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.
This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.
Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.
One doesnt forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.
Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).
He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).
He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).
In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitutions violation.
But, there is one big but. I'm not sure of how this all works legally, but I have a feeling you do.
He was tried in Yemen, where he was living for years, and was in at the time of his death. The judge ordered that he be found and captured "dead or alive". If I am correct, by law we typically respect foreign countries courts, when the law was broken in that country. Simply, one could easily argue that the US was just helping Yemen enforce their own laws.
Further the argument that congress must dictate the punishment for treason, is completely bunk, for two reasons. The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
The second is that the national security act of 1947, gave the National Security Council, the ability to do this. Until a court rules that this law is unconstitutional, what happened was perfectly legal, even then, Obama could not be found at fault, due to ex post facto being unconstitutional in most cases.
No we do not assassinate American citizens because some foreign gave an order.
Why in Gods name did obama assist al-qaeda in libya?The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
But, there is one big but. I'm not sure of how this all works legally, but I have a feeling you do.
He was tried in Yemen, where he was living for years, and was in at the time of his death. The judge ordered that he be found and captured "dead or alive". If I am correct, by law we typically respect foreign countries courts, when the law was broken in that country. Simply, one could easily argue that the US was just helping Yemen enforce their own laws.
Further the argument that congress must dictate the punishment for treason, is completely bunk, for two reasons. The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
The second is that the national security act of 1947, gave the National Security Council, the ability to do this. Until a court rules that this law is unconstitutional, what happened was perfectly legal, even then, Obama could not be found at fault, due to ex post facto being unconstitutional in most cases.
No we do not assassinate American citizens because some foreign gave an order.
Why in Gods name did obama assist al-qaeda in libya?The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
Seriously, relying on conspiracy theories to prove your point? Seriously?
Seriously, relying on conspiracy theories to prove your point? Seriously?
You are entitled to an opinion.
But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.
Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
Well hell jake I know you want the Constitution gone, Congress approves of what you want, so they created a bill that will do exactly that jake. And what will jake say then? Its the law. Do you have little scearcrowmen dancing around in your head saying if I only have a brain?
Once again, a law is considered legal until a court rules against it. Since no court has done so, it is legal. But I guess you just want to bypass this part of the law? Because obviously you don't want to follow the constitution and the legal system of our country for laws you don't like.
You are entitled to an opinion.
But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.
Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
Well hell jake I know you want the Constitution gone, Congress approves of what you want, so they created a bill that will do exactly that jake. And what will jake say then? Its the law. Do you have little scearcrowmen dancing around in your head saying if I only have a brain?
Once again, a law is considered legal until a court rules against it. Since no court has done so, it is legal. But I guess you just want to bypass this part of the law? Because obviously you don't want to follow the constitution and the legal system of our country for laws you don't like.
I consider the "but he's an American citizen" arguments as simple-minded. Those arguments are simply based on WHO gave the order rather than the order itself. Barak Obama gave the order, therefore it's unconstitutional. This is a purely political argument.
Here's the bottom line: as long as Al-Awlaki remained on the battlefield, he was a combatant and valid military target.
Otherwise, what the "he's an American citizen" nuts are saying is that combat troops need to decide whether to kill a combatant or stop to read him his Miranda Rights Warning before taking any further action. Again, how simple-minded.
All Al-Awlaki had to do was turn himself in to the authorities. Instead, he chose to remain on the battlefield as an active combatant. Let's not make Al-Awlaki some freaky poster boy for the United States Constitution. He was a goddamned terrorist who was looking for ways to kill Americans anywhere in the world, and the United States military killed him. Period.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
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 offense 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
I consider the "but he's an American citizen" arguments as simple-minded. Those arguments are simply based on WHO gave the order rather than the order itself. Barak Obama gave the order, therefore it's unconstitutional. This is a purely political argument.
Here's the bottom line: as long as Al-Awlaki remained on the battlefield, he was a combatant and valid military target.
Otherwise, what the "he's an American citizen" nuts are saying is that combat troops need to decide whether to kill a combatant or stop to read him his Miranda Rights Warning before taking any further action. Again, how simple-minded.
All Al-Awlaki had to do was turn himself in to the authorities. Instead, he chose to remain on the battlefield as an active combatant. Let's not make Al-Awlaki some freaky poster boy for the United States Constitution. He was a goddamned terrorist who was looking for ways to kill Americans anywhere in the world, and the United States military killed him. Period.
it's just as simple as this
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Just as simple as this
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 offense 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
I consider the "but he's an American citizen" arguments as simple-minded. Those arguments are simply based on WHO gave the order rather than the order itself. Barak Obama gave the order, therefore it's unconstitutional. This is a purely political argument.
Here's the bottom line: as long as Al-Awlaki remained on the battlefield, he was a combatant and valid military target.
Otherwise, what the "he's an American citizen" nuts are saying is that combat troops need to decide whether to kill a combatant or stop to read him his Miranda Rights Warning before taking any further action. Again, how simple-minded.
All Al-Awlaki had to do was turn himself in to the authorities. Instead, he chose to remain on the battlefield as an active combatant. Let's not make Al-Awlaki some freaky poster boy for the United States Constitution. He was a goddamned terrorist who was looking for ways to kill Americans anywhere in the world, and the United States military killed him. Period.
it's just as simple as this
Just as simple as this
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 offense 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
When one wages war against the U.S. as a noncombatant through aiding and abetting, then any such person, such as Osama, can be justly targeted and captured or killed.
Your reading of the Constitution is merely your opinion.
You clearly do not understand American history, the legal process, or the Constitution in times of war.
Remind me where this guy was in America when we wacked him.
Remind me where Obama was in America when we wacked him.
Stay focused and on track, bigreb.
You are describing your bit of North Carolina, my friend.
Stay focused, please.
When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process,
True enough, but what does that have to do with "treason and the Constitution"?
It has everything to do with it. The president has no authority to have an American citizen assassinated
When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
Art. 3 Section 3 states
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
Art. 3 Section 3 states
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Osama Bin Laden was a military target. There's no evidence he made an attempt to surrender. He had almost 10 years to surrender - the fact that the SEALS shot him in the head before he could think "WTF, maybe I should give up?" is his problem. Its their job to eliminate military targets with the lowest risk to civilian life and their own lives possible, and they executed that nearly flawlessly.
