Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[JakeStarkey]

It has already happened. Twice. You fail in all respects.

Well no.

But okay.

You posted a simple declarative statement, to wit: "The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation." That is, of course, completely and utterly wrong in all respects. So, in conclusion...you are utterly clueless. Thank you for playing.

This was explained to you, Jarlaxle. Now run along and play.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If that is true you should have no problem pointing to a guilty verdict that was handed down in court. Failing that, you can always point to the evidence that Obama released to justify his decision.

As soon as you point out where every person suspected of a crime has had a trial.

Or for that matter, every enemy combatant. Or adversary in war.

I am pretty sure that you just admitted you can't prove anything.

That statement above, QWB, has sealed your fail here.

 

[Sallow]

It has already happened. Twice. You fail in all respects.

Well no.

But okay.

You posted a simple declarative statement, to wit: "The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation." That is, of course, completely and utterly wrong in all respects. So, in conclusion...you are utterly clueless. Thank you for playing.

Sorry?

We've had 2 President impeached. Neither was put on trial after their impeachment. In fact, neither was removed from office.

 

[Sallow]

If that is true you should have no problem pointing to a guilty verdict that was handed down in court. Failing that, you can always point to the evidence that Obama released to justify his decision.

As soon as you point out where every person suspected of a crime has had a trial.

Or for that matter, every enemy combatant. Or adversary in war.

I am pretty sure that you just admitted you can't prove anything.

Because, quite simply..not every criminal, enemy combatant and adversary in war has been put on trial. Many have been killed.

Ask John Dillinger..

Oh wait. You can't. He was killed.

Or how about Jimmy Lee Dykes?

Oh wait..he's dead.

Did Obama violate that guy's rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whats the problem? I've known that America has been eliminating "Americans", since I was 17 years old, and on my 1st tour in Vietnam. If you think about it, the government was eliminating Americans in the Revolution... Before and After the Constitution was written.
For all of the bluster about "rights"... The rights end when one becomes a traitor to the nation.

But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.

Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.

The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.

The question, therefore, isn’t a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted – and we likely never will have such a ruling.

You are the guy that says the Supreme Court is the final say on the Constitution, feel free to cite any case where they said due process does not involve the judicial branch.

American Al Qaeda have all the due process they are due. That doesn't stop us from killing them as a perfectly acceptable act of self-defense against an organization declared to be an enemy of the US.

 

[Freewill]

Well no.

But okay.

You posted a simple declarative statement, to wit: "The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation." That is, of course, completely and utterly wrong in all respects. So, in conclusion...you are utterly clueless. Thank you for playing.

Sorry?

We've had 2 President impeached. Neither was put on trial after their impeachment. In fact, neither was removed from office.

Sorry sir but you are sadly mistaken, Johnson stood trial and was aquitted by one vote.

Clinton too stood trial and 50 voted guilty for one count and 45 the other far short of removing him from office. But the truth is two presidents were impeached, which means they stood trial. Clinton was guilty as hell but the democrats sold their souls and saved him.

 

[Freewill]

As soon as you point out where every person suspected of a crime has had a trial.

Or for that matter, every enemy combatant. Or adversary in war.

I am pretty sure that you just admitted you can't prove anything.

Because, quite simply..not every criminal, enemy combatant and adversary in war has been put on trial. Many have been killed.

Ask John Dillinger..

Oh wait. You can't. He was killed.

Or how about Jimmy Lee Dykes?

Oh wait..he's dead.

Did Obama violate that guy's rights?

Dillinger was gunned down as an intimate threat. In other word he wasn't going to surrender thus an intimate threat.

Same with Dykes.

 

[Liability]

I am pretty sure that you just admitted you can't prove anything.

Because, quite simply..not every criminal, enemy combatant and adversary in war has been put on trial. Many have been killed.

Ask John Dillinger..

Oh wait. You can't. He was killed.

Or how about Jimmy Lee Dykes?

Oh wait..he's dead.

Did Obama violate that guy's rights?

Dillinger was gunned down as an intimate threat. In other word he wasn't going to surrender thus an intimate threat.

Same with Dykes.

an intimate threat?

I have heard that he had a big gun.

And Dykes?

Self explanatory, I guess.

 

[Sallow]

You posted a simple declarative statement, to wit: "The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation." That is, of course, completely and utterly wrong in all respects. So, in conclusion...you are utterly clueless. Thank you for playing.

Sorry?

We've had 2 President impeached. Neither was put on trial after their impeachment. In fact, neither was removed from office.

Sorry sir but you are sadly mistaken, Johnson stood trial and was aquitted by one vote.

Clinton too stood trial and 50 voted guilty for one count and 45 the other far short of removing him from office. But the truth is two presidents were impeached, which means they stood trial. Clinton was guilty as hell but the democrats sold their souls and saved him.

Stood "trial" in congress.

There was a reason Gerald Ford nixed his re-election chances by pardoning Nixon.

And Clinton wasn't "guilty" of anything..except bad judgement.

 

[Sallow]

I am pretty sure that you just admitted you can't prove anything.

Because, quite simply..not every criminal, enemy combatant and adversary in war has been put on trial. Many have been killed.

Ask John Dillinger..

Oh wait. You can't. He was killed.

Or how about Jimmy Lee Dykes?

Oh wait..he's dead.

Did Obama violate that guy's rights?

Dillinger was gunned down as an intimate threat. In other word he wasn't going to surrender thus an intimate threat.

Same with Dykes.

Dillinger's girlfriend gunned him down? I thought it was G-Men.

Things you learn here..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As soon as you point out where every person suspected of a crime has had a trial.

Or for that matter, every enemy combatant. Or adversary in war.

I am pretty sure that you just admitted you can't prove anything.

Because, quite simply..not every criminal, enemy combatant and adversary in war has been put on trial. Many have been killed.

Ask John Dillinger..

Oh wait. You can't. He was killed.

Or how about Jimmy Lee Dykes?

Oh wait..he's dead.

Did Obama violate that guy's rights?

Want to point out where I said they were? In fact, point out where I said that is a bad thing, I bet you can't find a single post where I ever complained about the fact that crime goes unpunished.

What have I ever posted that makes you think I blame Obama for everything the FBI does? If you want to know it the FBI violated his rights, the answer, quite obviously, is yes. No one with a brain would deny that, anymore than they would deny that the action was justified.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.

Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.

The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.

The question, therefore, isn’t a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted – and we likely never will have such a ruling.

You are the guy that says the Supreme Court is the final say on the Constitution, feel free to cite any case where they said due process does not involve the judicial branch.

American Al Qaeda have all the due process they are due. That doesn't stop us from killing them as a perfectly acceptable act of self-defense against an organization declared to be an enemy of the US.

Prove it.

 

[Sallow]

I am pretty sure that you just admitted you can't prove anything.

Because, quite simply..not every criminal, enemy combatant and adversary in war has been put on trial. Many have been killed.

Ask John Dillinger..

Oh wait. You can't. He was killed.

Or how about Jimmy Lee Dykes?

Oh wait..he's dead.

Did Obama violate that guy's rights?

Want to point out where I said they were? In fact, point out where I said that is a bad thing, I bet you can't find a single post where I ever complained about the fact that crime goes unpunished.

What have I ever posted that makes you think I blame Obama for everything the FBI does? If you want to know it the FBI violated his rights, the answer, quite obviously, is yes. No one with a brain would deny that, anymore than they would deny that the action was justified.

The FBI violated who's rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because, quite simply..not every criminal, enemy combatant and adversary in war has been put on trial. Many have been killed.

Ask John Dillinger..

Oh wait. You can't. He was killed.

Or how about Jimmy Lee Dykes?

Oh wait..he's dead.

Did Obama violate that guy's rights?

Want to point out where I said they were? In fact, point out where I said that is a bad thing, I bet you can't find a single post where I ever complained about the fact that crime goes unpunished.

What have I ever posted that makes you think I blame Obama for everything the FBI does? If you want to know it the FBI violated his rights, the answer, quite obviously, is yes. No one with a brain would deny that, anymore than they would deny that the action was justified.

The FBI violated who's rights?

Everything the FBI does violates someone's rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whats the problem? I've known that America has been eliminating "Americans", since I was 17 years old, and on my 1st tour in Vietnam. If you think about it, the government was eliminating Americans in the Revolution... Before and After the Constitution was written.
For all of the bluster about "rights"... The rights end when one becomes a traitor to the nation.

But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.

Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.

The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.

The question, therefore, isn’t a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted – and we likely never will have such a ruling.

You are the guy that says the Supreme Court is the final say on the Constitution, feel free to cite any case where they said due process does not involve the judicial branch.

Actually not.

It’s a fact the Supreme Court has 'the final say on the Constitution.’ I merely acknowledge and state that fact.

Otherwise, due process is not solely the purview of the judiciary:

A court proceeding is not a requisite of due process. Administrative and executive proceedings are not judicial, yet they may satisfy the due process clause. Ballard v. Hunter (1907); Palmer v. McMahon (1890).

The Requirements of Due Process :: Fourteenth Amendment--Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

Which brings us back to the question of whether or not the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration is sufficient.

And the fact that this question will never be resolved because, again, the courts refuse to address issues considered political:

In an 83-page opinion, Judge John D. Bates said Mr. Awlaki’s father, the plaintiff, had no standing to file the lawsuit on behalf of his son. He also said decisions about targeted killings in such circumstances were a “political question” for executive branch officials to make — not judges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/middleeast/08killing.html

Separation of powers doctrine forbids the courts from second-guessing the executive in National security issues, or subjecting political decisions by the Chief Executive to judicial review. In such matters of politics, not law, it is the people, through the democratic process and elections, not the courts, who must confront a president perceived to be acting in a manner offensive to the Constitution.

Last November the people had that opportunity, and made their judgement accordingly.

 

[whitehall]

It's ironic that the federal government seems reluctant to bring a monster to trial after the Ft. Hood shooting because he grew a freaking beard but the administration issues a decree that a death sentence can be issued without a trial or a judge or jury because some "intelligence" agency determines that an American overseas is guilty of being a threat to US security. The Constitution hasn't been this violated since FDR managed to put American citizens in concentration camps during WW2.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.

Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.

The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.

The question, therefore, isn’t a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted – and we likely never will have such a ruling.

You are the guy that says the Supreme Court is the final say on the Constitution, feel free to cite any case where they said due process does not involve the judicial branch.

Actually not.

It’s a fact the Supreme Court has 'the final say on the Constitution.’ I merely acknowledge and state that fact.

If you were actually acknowledging fact you would point out that Congress has often overruled the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the Constitution. One example I can think of is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Please, keep pretending you are always right, it amuses me.

Otherwise, due process is not solely the purview of the judiciary:[

Due process has never been solely the process of the judiciary, has it?

A court proceeding is not a requisite of due process. Administrative and executive proceedings are not judicial, yet they may satisfy the due process clause. Ballard v. Hunter (1907); Palmer v. McMahon (1890).

The Requirements of Due Process :: Fourteenth Amendment--Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

Which brings us back to the question of whether or not the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration is sufficient.

Strange, can you explain how parole and probation actions, that only take place after a person has been convicted of a crime, somehow do not involve judicial proceedings? Isn't a judge necessary before someone ends in a post conviction status?

And the fact that this question will never be resolved because, again, the courts refuse to address issues considered political:

In an 83-page opinion, Judge John D. Bates said Mr. Awlaki’s father, the plaintiff, had no standing to file the lawsuit on behalf of his son. He also said decisions about targeted killings in such circumstances were a “political question” for executive branch officials to make — not judges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/middleeast/08killing.html

Separation of powers doctrine forbids the courts from second-guessing the executive in National security issues, or subjecting political decisions by the Chief Executive to judicial review. In such matters of politics, not law, it is the people, through the democratic process and elections, not the courts, who must confront a president perceived to be acting in a manner offensive to the Constitution.

Last November the people had that opportunity, and made their judgement accordingly.

The fact that they haven't addressed this yet does not mean they never will. Congress can easily move this from the political arena to the legal one by requiring the executive branch to get judicial approval before ordering the death of anyone. Use your imagination for once in your life.

 

[gwennie]

Wow the fear that the left generates is palitible.

Scary that they are NOW more scared of al-Qaeda since Obama started his predator killing. I said this four years ago, that if I were a brown skinned man I would be very scared of this President. He has no military experience and maybe the only gun experience he has is in drive bys. So he may use the power he has now to prove his manliness. Appears I was correct. Is it any wonder that those in the ME want to kill us more then ever? Dropping predator bombs on people then justifying the collateral damage as sorry wrong place wrong time might do that to some people.

Hyperbole much?

You don't need to be "brown" skin to be afraid of the President. Look at Republicans. 90% white. He terrifies them. Course, for many Republicans, probably the vast majority, anyone not lily white terrifies them.

Good God, don't you people ever tire of throwing around the race card?? You do realize, don't you, that the people who constantly accuse others of "racism" are most often the ones who are the most racist. All you are doing is projecting your hatred of a particular race onto someone else. Simple psychology, really.

 

[Liability]

Want to point out where I said they were? In fact, point out where I said that is a bad thing, I bet you can't find a single post where I ever complained about the fact that crime goes unpunished.

What have I ever posted that makes you think I blame Obama for everything the FBI does? If you want to know it the FBI violated his rights, the answer, quite obviously, is yes. No one with a brain would deny that, anymore than they would deny that the action was justified.

The FBI violated who's rights?

Everything the FBI does violates someone's rights.

Scumbag kidnaps a child. FBI discovers where the scumbag kidnapper is. They rescue the child and arrest the scumbag.

I'm not seeing a violation of anybody's rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You posted a simple declarative statement, to wit: "The very day a President is impeached AND THEN put on trial for ANYTHING..will be the end of the Nation." That is, of course, completely and utterly wrong in all respects. So, in conclusion...you are utterly clueless. Thank you for playing.

Sorry?

We've had 2 President impeached. Neither was put on trial after their impeachment. In fact, neither was removed from office.

Sorry sir but you are sadly mistaken, Johnson stood trial and was aquitted by one vote.

Clinton too stood trial and 50 voted guilty for one count and 45 the other far short of removing him from office. But the truth is two presidents were impeached, which means they stood trial. Clinton was guilty as hell but the democrats sold their souls and saved him.

Republican votes saved him.