GOODBYE 6th Amendment!

[Murhy]

Our PRESIDENT just said that our Constitution only applies most of the time.The real problem with using drone strikes on American citizens was carefully avoided in the President's speech. The issue is not, "This guy was using his American citizenship as a shield." The real issue is where does it stop? Your PRESIDENT just said that your Constitution only applies most of the time. What about the sixth amendment? Laws only apply when they are convienent, and when they arent any more, no big deal. CHANGE.

 

[Granny]

Of course the Constitution only applies some of the time ... when Obama doesn't like what it says he simply issues an Executive Order.

 

[Intense]

Progressive Statist Utopian-ism. 2+2=5 for as long as we say it does.

 

[BlindBoo]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

As Delivered: Obama?s Speech on Terrorism - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, this is essentially what Bush said, but of course, then it was Bush is shredding the Constitution.

 

[Intense]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

As Delivered: Obama?s Speech on Terrorism - Washington Wire - WSJ

That is not the issue, at least not in part. Flying drones over Sovereign Airspace without consent, targeting for assassination, causing collateral damage, is. You would be okay with China or Russia, Mexico, or Syria flying drones here?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"with China or Russia, Mexico, or Syria flying drones here?"

(1) they are not and if they were

(2) shoot em down

This is not a constitutional issue, merely one of the use of a tool to get bad guys and bad girls where the normal American LEO or military forces cannot get to them. If Pakistan can shoot the drones down, let them. The USA will not go to war with Pakistan over the issue: only send more drones.

 

[Murhy]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."



The point IS that he Sounded VERY clear. The point isn't that this guy deserved to die NOR that is was for the greater good. The point is that our constitution might as well not exist. But it DOES. And it is no longer used to create order, but to be MANIPULATED by the people who CAN to suit THEIR needs. The issue isn't a left or right issue. It is a how can this be done by ANYONE and it be acceptable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the guy won't surrender and is waging war or aiding and abetting those who are waging war, the issue is only the means to get him.

No constitutional issue exists.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Progressive Statist Utopian-ism. 2+2=5 for as long as we say it does.

Really?I don't see conservative groups protesting drone strikes, It was progressive group code pink that was protesting at Obama's speech yesterday.

 

[Murhy]

If they guy won't surrender and is waging war or aiding and abetting those who are waging war, the issue is only the means to get him.

No constitutional issue exists.

Murder happens EVERY day in the United States. American citizens killing American citizens. It happens in the shadows, doesn't make the news, and then no one cares...because it is EXPECTED to happen. Ever seen The Dark Knight? When something happens that isn't EXPECTED...EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS. Does anyone think that we can find someone HIDING IN A MOUNTAIN or a desert or in a hole in the ground, but not some thug who has killed 20 people in his life BY HIMSELF who is sitting at home watching the news about Benghazi and laughing himself to sleep? Yeah. The difference is that that guy isn't on the news. No one cares. Because American citizens aren't SUPPOSED to be killing Americans over seas!!!! If that happens we send over drones for JUSTICE! If death isn't public....If it isn't seen by the masses, then it goes away. Don't be blinded by what we are SHOWN. What we are SUPPOSED to care about is CHOSEN for us. TERROR!!!!!CHANGE THE RULES because now we are afraid. Don't worry about what the change means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, for crap's sake, no constitutional issue exists. Wage war on America, hide where LEO can't get to you, then expect a drone. No different than a bullet.

 

[OKTexas]

Our PRESIDENT just said that our Constitution only applies most of the time.The real problem with using drone strikes on American citizens was carefully avoided in the President's speech. The issue is not, "This guy was using his American citizenship as a shield." The real issue is where does it stop? Your PRESIDENT just said that your Constitution only applies most of the time. What about the sixth amendment? Laws only apply when they are convienent, and when they arent any more, no big deal. CHANGE.

First thing you need to get your head around is the 6th Amendment does not apply in the cases you mentioned. These were people actively engaged in acts of war against the US and other allied nations. There are very few things this administration have done that I agree with, this is one of them. Any American that publicly engages in acts of war from a another country deserves no better than these two got.

 

[g5000]

That is not the issue, at least not in part. Flying drones over Sovereign Airspace without consent, targeting for assassination, causing collateral damage, is.

That's a lie. Those sovereigns gave their full consent.

 

[g5000]

Yemen’s leader said Saturday that he personally approves every U.S. drone strike in his country and described the remotely piloted aircraft as a technical marvel that has helped reverse al-Qaeda’s gains.

In interview, Yemeni president acknowledges approving U.S. drone strikes - Washington Post

According to officials familiar with the deliberations, the lawyers threw themselves into the project and swiftly completed a short memorandum. It preliminarily concluded, based on the evidence available at the time, that Mr. Awlaki was a lawful target because he was participating in the war with Al Qaeda and also because he was a specific threat to the country. The overlapping reasoning justified a strike either by the Pentagon, which generally operated within the Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda, or by the C.I.A., a civilian agency which generally operated within a “national self-defense” framework deriving from a president’s security powers.




They also analyzed other bodies of law to see whether they would render a strike impermissible, concluding that they did not. For example, the Yemeni government had granted permission for airstrikes on its soil as long as the United States did not acknowledge its role, so such strikes would not violate Yemeni sovereignty.

How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

Singer said that “for several years, Pakistan has openly said, ‘How dare you violate our sovereignty,’ but it turned out the CIA was flying from Pakistani bases with Pakistan’s permission.”

Pakistan Ends Drone Strikes in Blow to U.S. War on Terror - Bloomberg

 

[g5000]

It's funny how much these alleged "conservatives" are sounding like liberals these days.

Where were all these concerns over drones and sovereignty during Bush's regime? I guess they were too busy trying to prove waterboarding isn't torture, and that habeas corpus isn't for everybody at the time.

 

[BlindBoo]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

As Delivered: Obama?s Speech on Terrorism - Washington Wire - WSJ

That is not the issue, at least not in part. Flying drones over Sovereign Airspace without consent, targeting for assassination, causing collateral damage, is. You would be okay with China or Russia, Mexico, or Syria flying drones here?

Yeman's government gave the USA permission.

"and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture"

 

[BlindBoo]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."



The point IS that he Sounded VERY clear. The point isn't that this guy deserved to die NOR that is was for the greater good. The point is that our constitution might as well not exist. But it DOES. And it is no longer used to create order, but to be MANIPULATED by the people who CAN to suit THEIR needs. The issue isn't a left or right issue. It is a how can this be done by ANYONE and it be acceptable.

So you think the Consitution should protect a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd from a SWAT team?

You're right it's not left or right, as I said I would expect even a Republcian president to take the same measure to protect Americans.

 

[Murhy]

So you think the Consitution should protect a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd from a SWAT team?

You're right it's not left or right, as I said I would expect even a Republcian president to take the same measure to protect Americans.[/QUOTE]

Of course not. Innocent until proven guilty. If a person is in the act of shooting people in the face, shoot him in the face. Guilty. But if we THINK he is GOING to shoot people in the face....not guilty yet, at least not until it is proven...in a Court of law. Thats why the Court of law is there in the first place. right?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The real problem with using drone strikes on American citizens was carefully avoided in the President's speech. The issue is not, "This guy was using his American citizenship as a shield." The real issue is where does it stop?

That's always the 'real issue' when you can't actually defend your stance. Hey - suppose we make murder illegal? We could do that, but then where does it stop? Before you know it, breathing would be illegal!

If you oppose the use of deadly force to defend America from its enemies, you should say so up front instead of dancing around the issue.

Your PRESIDENT just said that your Constitution only applies most of the time. What about the sixth amendment? Laws only apply when they are convienent, and when they arent any more, no big deal. CHANGE.

The 6th amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions. Have you ever actually read it? Eliminating military targets is not a criminal prosecution.