GOODBYE 6th Amendment!

[TemplarKormac]

Those examples (1) are the exceptions that prove the rule that the LEO does a good job overall and (2) do not give pause to the correctness of my position: this is about technology, not the Constitution.

MikeK, the answer is improving the fail safe nature of the technology's use, not abandoning it.

No of course it isn't. Thanks for proving that, Jake. It's more about the Constitution than you care to admit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those examples (1) are the exceptions that prove the rule that the LEO does a good job overall and (2) do not give pause to the correctness of my position: this is about technology, not the Constitution.

MikeK, the answer is improving the fail safe nature of the technology's use, not abandoning it.

Excuse me? How does the fact that law enforcement routinely blunders when they try to do things prove that they do a good job?

The reason this is about the Constitution is that you can apply the same logic to using tanks to stop speeders.

 

[Murhy]

Those examples (1) are the exceptions that prove the rule that the LEO does a good job overall and (2) do not give pause to the correctness of my position: this is about technology, not the Constitution.

MikeK, the answer is improving the fail safe nature of the technology's use, not abandoning it.

Excuse me? How does the fact that law enforcement routinely blunders when they try to do things prove that they do a good job?

The reason this is about the Constitution is that you can apply the same logic to using tanks to stop speeders.

We should post tanks outside of bars, and if a law enforcement agent has evidence that a person is exceeding the BAC limit, they should blow up the car as the person starts it. That would seriously cut down on drunk driving accidents.

 

[Foxfyre]

I honestly haven't formed a firm opinion on this one. Given how much Obama has twisted and manipulated and distorted the Constitution and the intended powers of government, my first impulse of course is to question his motives and tactics and distrust him on this issue too.

But in honesty, it seems reasonable that an American citizen who takes up arms against his fellow citizens on behalf of a foreign power of any type should have no constitutional protection of any kind. And absolutely should be subject to being targeted as an enemy of the state.

But should we give any individual or a few individuals power to make the decision that an American citizen has forfeited his/her constitutional protection? Is an enemy of the state? Would this not open the door to so designate anybody an enemy of the state and thus eligible to be targeted for elimination without due process?

I don't want to give anybody such power, much less a government that is already out of control.

So I'm still thinking this one through. And hope to God we get it right.

My problem is that Obama seems to think he is justified in ordering anyone's execution. He is giving himself the power to be judge, jury, and executioner, despite all his high falutin words how wonderful the Constitution and the American justice system is. That type of power should ever be in the hands of one man, or even one branch of government. Let Congress pass a law giving the government the power to try people like this, have a jury trial, present the evidence, and then give them a chance to defend themselves. After a conviction, and the appeals, he can surrender to serve his sentence, and be eligible for a new trial if he has evidence that was not available to his attorney.

After all, this is supposed to be a nation built on the rule of law.

If we are able to arrest the person, yes. Of course. Due process and all that. But the real issue here is whether we have the right to assassinate a murderer before he kills again. Before he trains and commissions others to go and kill again. Assassinate an Osama bin Laden? Or wait until he can be arrested and given due process? Which would likely be never.

And if it is a U.S. citizen taking the place of the bin Ladens out there, does he or she get special dispensation or pass because he or she holds a U.S. citizenship? A U.S. passport?

We can spend a great deal of band width discussing and debating the morality and propriety and legalisms of the situation. And actually we should, because we should always be clear on what it is that we do. But the answer is not clear cut for me. Not yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those examples (1) are the exceptions that prove the rule that the LEO does a good job overall and (2) do not give pause to the correctness of my position: this is about technology, not the Constitution.

MikeK, the answer is improving the fail safe nature of the technology's use, not abandoning it.

No of course it isn't. Thanks for proving that, Jake. It's more about the Constitution than you care to admit.

No, it is not about the Constitution, and no one has proved anything differently. Your are entitled to your own unsupported opinion, but the president is within his constitutional authority until either SCOTUS or Congress says he is not. The way it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I honestly haven't formed a firm opinion on this one. Given how much Obama has twisted and manipulated and distorted the Constitution and the intended powers of government, my first impulse of course is to question his motives and tactics and distrust him on this issue too.

But in honesty, it seems reasonable that an American citizen who takes up arms against his fellow citizens on behalf of a foreign power of any type should have no constitutional protection of any kind. And absolutely should be subject to being targeted as an enemy of the state.

But should we give any individual or a few individuals power to make the decision that an American citizen has forfeited his/her constitutional protection? Is an enemy of the state? Would this not open the door to so designate anybody an enemy of the state and thus eligible to be targeted for elimination without due process?

I don't want to give anybody such power, much less a government that is already out of control.

So I'm still thinking this one through. And hope to God we get it right.

My problem is that Obama seems to think he is justified in ordering anyone's execution. He is giving himself the power to be judge, jury, and executioner, despite all his high falutin words how wonderful the Constitution and the American justice system is. That type of power should ever be in the hands of one man, or even one branch of government. Let Congress pass a law giving the government the power to try people like this, have a jury trial, present the evidence, and then give them a chance to defend themselves. After a conviction, and the appeals, he can surrender to serve his sentence, and be eligible for a new trial if he has evidence that was not available to his attorney.

After all, this is supposed to be a nation built on the rule of law.

If we are able to arrest the person, yes. Of course. Due process and all that. But the real issue here is whether we have the right to assassinate a murderer before he kills again. Before he trains and commissions others to go and kill again. Assassinate an Osama bin Laden? Or wait until he can be arrested and given due process? Which would likely be never.

And if it is a U.S. citizen taking the place of the bin Ladens out there, does he or she get special dispensation or pass because he or she holds a U.S. citizenship? A U.S. passport?

We can spend a great deal of band width discussing and debating the morality and propriety and legalisms of the situation. And actually we should, because we should always be clear on what it is that we do. But the answer is not clear cut for me. Not yet.

We sent people into Pakistan to pick bin Laden up, and he died in the process. Not perfect, but acceptable. What, exactly, makes it impossible for us to go into another country to arrest the next bin Laden other than our willingness to take the easy way out by ordering him killed instead? I oppose capital punishment even when it has the full due process of the judicial system, I will not accept any attempt to justify a shortcut.

Notice how I didn't mention being a US citizen in this? The government should not have the power to kill, period.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those examples (1) are the exceptions that prove the rule that the LEO does a good job overall and (2) do not give pause to the correctness of my position: this is about technology, not the Constitution.

MikeK, the answer is improving the fail safe nature of the technology's use, not abandoning it.

No of course it isn't. Thanks for proving that, Jake. It's more about the Constitution than you care to admit.

No, it is not about the Constitution, and no one has proved anything differently. Your are entitled to your own unsupported opinion, but the president is within his constitutional authority until either SCOTUS or Congress says he is not. The way it is.

Why does Obama keep talking about due process if this is not about the Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB, of course the government has the right if We the People give it the right.

Are you a pacifist? That is not a trick question, just trying to get a handle on understanding you.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Those examples (1) are the exceptions that prove the rule that the LEO does a good job overall and (2) do not give pause to the correctness of my position: this is about technology, not the Constitution.

MikeK, the answer is improving the fail safe nature of the technology's use, not abandoning it.

No of course it isn't. Thanks for proving that, Jake. It's more about the Constitution than you care to admit.

No, it is not about the Constitution, and no one has proved anything differently. Your are entitled to your own unsupported opinion, but the president is within his constitutional authority until either SCOTUS or Congress says he is not. The way it is.

So everything is legal until proven illegal?

I take it you have never actually sat down and read the Constitution and the powers and limits of powers it outlines for each of the three branches of Government.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

If the battlefield is the streets of London should be flying drones and targeting random Nigerians who think that Britain is invading their country?

Strawman, no comparison to reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No of course it isn't. Thanks for proving that, Jake. It's more about the Constitution than you care to admit.

No, it is not about the Constitution, and no one has proved anything differently. Your are entitled to your own unsupported opinion, but the president is within his constitutional authority until either SCOTUS or Congress says he is not. The way it is.

So everything is legal until proven illegal?

I take it you have never actually sat down and read the Constitution and the powers and limits of powers it outlines for each of the three branches of Government.

I have, and you may have as well, but you clearly do not understand it at all.

 

[Clementine]

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.

On the few occasions when it doesn't get in his way, it applies. Otherwise, it's something to be completely ignored.

Obama and congress, both parties, need to refresh themselves on the constitution and bill of rights. Our rights should never be trampled by government. It should be considered a crime to do that. Actually, it is a crime for most people. Government has special rules for themselves.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

I'm less informed as to the kid, from what I understand he was not the primary target in that strike. He may have been hanging with the wrong people. Personally I blame the dad for taking him to that God forsaken place to begin with.

EDIT: The evidence on the dad is still all over the internet, all you have to do is look.

If the alleged evidence is all over the internet you shouldn't have a problem providing links, and documenting it was presented in court.

Active enemy combatants, operating in third world countries, neither get or deserve a day in court. Also you can get off your duff and find your own damn links to prove me wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB, of course the government has the right if We the People give it the right.

Are you a pacifist? That is not a trick question, just trying to get a handle on understanding you.

Hey, idiot, I said power, not right.

Learn to read.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If the battlefield is the streets of London should be flying drones and targeting random Nigerians who think that Britain is invading their country?

Strawman, no comparison to reality.

Seriously?

The soldier you mentioned was killed in London by a Nigerian who claimed that it was justified by the fact that soldiers are killing people in his country. I guess that means that you are the one that has no connection to reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm less informed as to the kid, from what I understand he was not the primary target in that strike. He may have been hanging with the wrong people. Personally I blame the dad for taking him to that God forsaken place to begin with.

EDIT: The evidence on the dad is still all over the internet, all you have to do is look.

If the alleged evidence is all over the internet you shouldn't have a problem providing links, and documenting it was presented in court.

Active enemy combatants, operating in third world countries, neither get or deserve a day in court. Also you can get off your duff and find your own damn links to prove me wrong.

I don't look for things that don't exist simply because people issue ridiculous challenges.

 

[OKTexas]

If the battlefield is the streets of London should be flying drones and targeting random Nigerians who think that Britain is invading their country?

Strawman, no comparison to reality.

Seriously?

The soldier you mentioned was killed in London by a Nigerian who claimed that it was justified by the fact that soldiers are killing people in his country. I guess that means that you are the one that has no connection to reality.

England is hardly an inaccessible third world country, had the asshole we offed in Yemen been there we could have extradited him. But sending troops into Yemen would have had unacceptable risks and cost a hell of allot more than one missal. I take you as a person with very little or no military experience, which might excuse part of your ignorance.

 

[Moonglow]

Wow, the FBI assassinated John Dillinger and violated his 6th Amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

If the alleged evidence is all over the internet you shouldn't have a problem providing links, and documenting it was presented in court.

Active enemy combatants, operating in third world countries, neither get or deserve a day in court. Also you can get off your duff and find your own damn links to prove me wrong.

I don't look for things that don't exist simply because people issue ridiculous challenges.

How about you start here for a small insight to the scum you are trying to defend.

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Be sure and read all the way through the "Other connections" section.

 

[OKTexas]

Wow, the FBI assassinated John Dillinger and violated his 6th Amendment.

Can't forget about what they did with Bonnie and Clyde.