GOODBYE 6th Amendment!

[JakeStarkey]

Using the word "intelligent" would have been better, you are jus so misguided...

That you don't or won't understand the Constitution is your problem, no one else's.

Fact: the president is justified in using drones.

Fact: you are wrong in that you disagree.

Very well said. Labeling something as "fact" surely makes that thing a fact.

Not the labeling but the stated truth is factual.

Fact: you are wrong in your assumptions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

". . . unless Rand had actually united both sides of the aisle with that little stunt you thought was a complete waste of time."

Yes, it was a stunt and no it did not unite both sides of the aisle.

The libertarian approach on this issue is wrong, period.

Yet Obama admitted he was wrong by changing the rules.

Interesting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

". . . unless Rand had actually united both sides of the aisle with that little stunt you thought was a complete waste of time."

Yes, it was a stunt and no it did not unite both sides of the aisle.

The libertarian approach on this issue is wrong, period.

Yet Obama admitted he was wrong by changing the rules. Interesting.

Only in your head that he made any admissions.

You, on the other hand, have admitted you have no idea about what we are discussing.

 

[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.

It is funny that the only places where you agree with Obama are the ones where you are wrong. Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like.

If, on the other hand, Obama has actual evidence, and can prove that he actually tried to arrest them and that they resisted with deadly force, then you have a point.

Holly crap, using your standards we had no right to kill Hitler unless he was holding a gun shooting at Americans. The asshole in Yemen was recruiting, planning attacks and providing material support to terrorist, just like Hitler did for his generals. He was directly linked to the Ft Hood shooter and others including the underwear bomber. Either you are ignorant of his activities or you are blinded by partisanship, either way you got this one wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If the guy was waging war you should be able to point to all the people he killed, or at least shot at. The only war he was engaged in as far as we know is one of words, and you are giving the government carte blanche to kill people who have a different point of view. Where does that stop? Should the president be able to use drones on environmental activists who refuse to surrender if he can argue that they are endangering lives? Because I can quite easily prove that the positions that some environmentalists hold will result in the deaths of billions of people.

False criteria, podjo. Waging war involves other means than shooting at people.

You shifted grounds to American terrorists here in America who refuse to surrender. Sure, if they are holed up and it will cost LEO lives to get them and they won't come out. Sure, light them up.

I did not shift the grounds.

If waging war involves anti American rhetoric then why didn't be kill Chavez? Why don't we blow up North Korea? How, exactly, did these people wage war?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like."

False.

How is it false? What evidence do you have, other than Obama saying they were guilty?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"It is sad that statists remain statists no matter how bad the state gets."

There is a reason why libertarianism is either ignored or disdained by the overwhelming number of Americans: it is as worthless as communism.

This is the guy that called me a statist my first week on the board.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It is funny that the only places where you agree with Obama are the ones where you are wrong. Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like.

If, on the other hand, Obama has actual evidence, and can prove that he actually tried to arrest them and that they resisted with deadly force, then you have a point.

Holly crap, using your standards we had no right to kill Hitler unless he was holding a gun shooting at Americans. The asshole in Yemen was recruiting, planning attacks and providing material support to terrorist, just like Hitler did for his generals. He was directly linked to the Ft Hood shooter and others including the underwear bomber. Either you are ignorant of his activities or you are blinded by partisanship, either way you got this one wrong.

Those are my standards? Seriously?

We are talking about the government deliberately deciding to kill people that are American citizens who are not on a battlefield, not taking out the leader of the enemies forces in the middle of a war. If Obama has evidence that these people are actually engaged in active warfare then he should present it to someone. If, on the other hand, all he has is evidence that they were planning a criminal act, which is how he thinks the government should treat terrorism, then he should arrest them, and bring them to trial.

He cannot have it both ways. Neither can you.

 

[BlindBoo]

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"

Is Yemen the only place where we have used drones? How does not being able to capture someone justify deadly force? Can the police shoot an unarmed person simply because they are not able to capture him?

It is where we killed this senoir al Queda operative.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the guy was waging war you should be able to point to all the people he killed, or at least shot at. The only war he was engaged in as far as we know is one of words, and you are giving the government carte blanche to kill people who have a different point of view. Where does that stop? Should the president be able to use drones on environmental activists who refuse to surrender if he can argue that they are endangering lives? Because I can quite easily prove that the positions that some environmentalists hold will result in the deaths of billions of people.

False criteria, podjo. Waging war involves other means than shooting at people.

You shifted grounds to American terrorists here in America who refuse to surrender. Sure, if they are holed up and it will cost LEO lives to get them and they won't come out. Sure, light them up.

I did not shift the grounds.

If waging war involves anti American rhetoric then why didn't be kill Chavez? Why don't we blow up North Korea? How, exactly, did these people wage war?

False comparison. We have already disposed of that. Move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like."

False.

How is it false? What evidence do you have, other than Obama saying they were guilty?

The evidence is there, but you discount it. But you don't count is the point: move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"It is sad that statists remain statists no matter how bad the state gets."

There is a reason why libertarianism is either ignored or disdained by the overwhelming number of Americans: it is as worthless as communism.

This is the guy that called me a statist my first week on the board.

Because you were arguing for a large government solution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, QWB, Obama has the right of it and you have the wrong of it.

 

[OKTexas]

It is funny that the only places where you agree with Obama are the ones where you are wrong. Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like.

If, on the other hand, Obama has actual evidence, and can prove that he actually tried to arrest them and that they resisted with deadly force, then you have a point.

Holly crap, using your standards we had no right to kill Hitler unless he was holding a gun shooting at Americans. The asshole in Yemen was recruiting, planning attacks and providing material support to terrorist, just like Hitler did for his generals. He was directly linked to the Ft Hood shooter and others including the underwear bomber. Either you are ignorant of his activities or you are blinded by partisanship, either way you got this one wrong.

Those are my standards? Seriously?

We are talking about the government deliberately deciding to kill people that are American citizens who are not on a battlefield, not taking out the leader of the enemies forces in the middle of a war. If Obama has evidence that these people are actually engaged in active warfare then he should present it to someone. If, on the other hand, all he has is evidence that they were planning a criminal act, which is how he thinks the government should treat terrorism, then he should arrest them, and bring them to trial.

He cannot have it both ways. Neither can you.

Not on the battlefield, really! Tell the soldier in England or the folks in Boston where the defined battlefield is. I'm very sure they would be interested in your opinion.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Were any of the people killed by drones in a tower shooting at people?

Since the answer to that question is self evident, why do you keep using it to defend something else? An equivalent situation is that the police have located a guy they think is responsible for selling the murder weapon to a known killer driving down the freeway and they decide to shoot his vehicle from the police helicopter because they don't have a car in the area. Unless you can find me some sort of citation that makes that type of response legal, you do not have a point.

The question is if American citizenship protected a man who became at senior al Queda operative in Yeman who was actively plotting to kill Americans. It didn't, it shouldn't, and I don't believe it ever will. Like the President said " 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."

 

[BlindBoo]

I have a difficult time with anyone, especially the President, saying that the Constitution only applies when they want it to.

That doesn't come from a President. That comes from a King or Dictator.

I have a difficult time believing that was ever said! Oh that's right, it wasn't.

 

[Murhy]

Holly crap, using your standards we had no right to kill Hitler unless he was holding a gun shooting at Americans. The asshole in Yemen was recruiting, planning attacks and providing material support to terrorist, just like Hitler did for his generals. He was directly linked to the Ft Hood shooter and others including the underwear bomber. Either you are ignorant of his activities or you are blinded by partisanship, either way you got this one wrong.

Those are my standards? Seriously?

We are talking about the government deliberately deciding to kill people that are American citizens who are not on a battlefield, not taking out the leader of the enemies forces in the middle of a war. If Obama has evidence that these people are actually engaged in active warfare then he should present it to someone. If, on the other hand, all he has is evidence that they were planning a criminal act, which is how he thinks the government should treat terrorism, then he should arrest them, and bring them to trial.

He cannot have it both ways. Neither can you.

Not on the battlefield, really! Tell the soldier in England or the folks in Boston where the defined battlefield is. I'm very sure they would be interested in your opinion.

To be fair...the point isn't whether or not they are on the battlefield...the point is and correct me if I'm wrong...the battlefield is now declared to be here...and at what point are drones going to be blowing up houses in the US...to take out threats...we obviously aren't there yet...but this has set a dangerous standard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

It is funny that the only places where you agree with Obama are the ones where you are wrong. Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like.

If, on the other hand, Obama has actual evidence, and can prove that he actually tried to arrest them and that they resisted with deadly force, then you have a point.

Holly crap, using your standards we had no right to kill Hitler unless he was holding a gun shooting at Americans. The asshole in Yemen was recruiting, planning attacks and providing material support to terrorist, just like Hitler did for his generals. He was directly linked to the Ft Hood shooter and others including the underwear bomber. Either you are ignorant of his activities or you are blinded by partisanship, either way you got this one wrong.

The US made those claims and have never backed them up in anyway with facts or evidence. Perhaps now you can tell us what horrible crimes his 16 year old son was planning when they murdered him the same way?

 

[OriginalShroom]

I have a difficult time with anyone, especially the President, saying that the Constitution only applies when they want it to.

That doesn't come from a President. That comes from a King or Dictator.

I have a difficult time believing that was ever said! Oh that's right, it wasn't.

Did Obama say the Constitution only applies part of the time?

This is the same man who has said that he has the right and the authority to proclaim anyone, anywhere, even an American Citizen a Danger and issue secret "Kill on sight" orders without review by anyone, including the Judicial branch.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Were any of the people killed by drones in a tower shooting at people?

Since the answer to that question is self evident, why do you keep using it to defend something else? An equivalent situation is that the police have located a guy they think is responsible for selling the murder weapon to a known killer driving down the freeway and they decide to shoot his vehicle from the police helicopter because they don't have a car in the area. Unless you can find me some sort of citation that makes that type of response legal, you do not have a point.

The question is if American citizenship protected a man who became at senior al Queda operative in Yeman who was actively plotting to kill Americans. It didn't, it shouldn't, and I don't believe it ever will. Like the President said " 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."

You are blithely allowing the President Carte Blanche on naming anyone he chooses as an enemy and ordering his or her death. Obama nor this Government ever provided any evidence their claims were true. No charges were ever filed no Court in absentia nothing, Just our Government proclaiming it is true and murdering an American citizen and his 16 year old son.